Just a reminder.

[Ferno]

[Tunnelcat]

Need to post that on a giant billboard on every major freeway in the U.S. next October. He needed to add 2 things to that list too.

100% voted FOR allowing weapons of war to continue to be sold to the general public, including those who are mentally unstable or unfit to even own a weapon.

100% voted FOR denying all women the right to control their own bodies and reproductive choices.

[Ferno]

Also, don't forget, that when you go vote Dem (You too TC), you're voting to keep crazies like Woodchip and DeSantis from taking power they don't deserve.

[TheWhat]

As long as someone is fairly elected that’s who we get. I mean it’s a bit of a stretch to say someone “deserves” it.

[woodchip]

Need to post that on a giant billboard on every major freeway in the U.S. next October. He needed to add 2 things to that list too.

100% voted FOR allowing weapons of war to continue to be sold to the general public, including those who are mentally unstable or unfit to even own a weapon.

What weapons of war? No weapons of war are allowed to be sold to civilians unless you have a class C license .

100% voted FOR denying all women the right to control their own bodies and reproductive choices.

How about the the female fetus, do they not have a say?

[Tunnelcat]

On the definition of weapons of war, do you realize that the precursors to the modern AR-15 style rifles were specifically designed as a more modern military replacement for those aging WWII rifles by an engineer named Eugene Stoner in the late 1950's? Read that, MILITARY REPLACEMENT RIFLE. These guns were originally marketed to the military, so that makes them weapons of war, period. Being marketed to the military, they of course wanted a rifle that was lighter, easier to carry and could select fire with one trigger pull in battle, single, multiples and automatic. So by now, we have the reliable AR-15 style of rifle made by many manufacturers being sold to actual citizens. Many people have them set up to full automatic too, which may give men a boner, but is lousy for hunting and home defense. So I say again. These are weapons made to kill humans in war, period. You can parse it by saying they can be used for hunting and self defense. Well, that's true for the hunting part, but for self defense, not so much. They are light rifles, easy to carry and quick to shoulder, which is great for hunting and in battle. The ammo they use is powerful and can rip flesh to shreds and ventilate walls, so not good for self defense in your average neighborhood. It also doesn't have a really long reach, which makes it poorer for accurate long distance target shooting. I myself do not own an AR-15. But I do own a scout semiautomatic rifle that's based on the older M1 Garand. It's short but heavy, but can hit targets a long distance off since it fires 7.62X51 NATO rounds. I use it for target shooting, which is fun and challenging to try to hit something very far off with such a short rifle. I would never think of firing it at an intruder in my own home or neighborhood to defend myself since the rounds would go through my walls and other home's walls. The only applicable use in the average American neighborhood would be during a war. As such, since it's a impractical for home defense and is technically a weapon of war, I would gladly give it up if made illegal, but ONLY if all assault weapons were banned and removed from the hands of ALL citizens in this country right now. It'll never happen given the nuttiness and fanaticism surrounding guns in this country, but fair is fair and so is a level playing field.

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assaul ... on-of-war/

What about an 11 year old who is raped and is forced to carry that pregnancy? What about a woman with an ectopic pregnancy that'll be fatal to her if an abortion isn't performed early on? Doctors are so scared in illegal abortion states that they're so paralyzed with fear about breaking the law that they don't know what to do to help these women. Are any of these women who didn't make the choice to have these pregnancies forced on them any less important? What about absolutely NO movement from Republicans about financially helping already born kids out of poverty, especially to single mothers and people of color? Talk about crime, that's where it starts, poor kids in poor neighborhoods with no support and absent fathers. Speaking of fathers, what about consequences to the males in this tryst? Nothing from Republicans since they created this newest mess. It comes down to this. Republicans are quick to support the unborn, but they don't want to pay for and support the result, actual kids, period. By the way, banning abortion may make Republicans feel good, but the reality is, it still goes on, in legal states and back alleys in illegal states. All they've done is take away a woman's right to control her own reproduction and life.

[Ferno]

How about the the female fetus, do they not have a say?

You don't get to speak for a fetus. ★■◆● off.

You don't get to speak for anyone. ★■◆● off.

You don't get to answer for a woman. ★■◆● off.

Just in case you didn't see it...

★■◆●.

Off.

And if you somehow can't do that, you're about to find out what an epic beatdown in the polls looks like.

What about an 11 year old who is raped and is forced to carry that pregnancy? What about a woman with an ectopic pregnancy that'll be fatal to her if an abortion isn't performed early on?

He doesn't care. All these years and we've learned one thing about him - he cares more about hating liberals than he does anything else. He cares more about a persons private parts than he does about saving a life. He cares more about 'triggering/owning the libs' than he does about actually caring about a fellow person. He's a proud member of the trump cult and the only thing that will break him is if trump dies. Hell, he even brought up Hillary - AGAIN.

[Tunnelcat]

In fact, abortion control is not about life, but about power. Republicans are no better than the Taliban in their desire to control women and everything about women's lives.

[woodchip]

On the definition of weapons of war, do you realize that the precursors to the modern AR-15 style rifles were specifically designed as a more modern military replacement for those aging WWII rifles by an engineer named Eugene Stoner in the late 1950's? Read that, MILITARY REPLACEMENT RIFLE. These guns were originally marketed to the military, so that makes them weapons of war, period. Being marketed to the military, they of course wanted a rifle that was lighter, easier to carry and could select fire with one trigger pull in battle, single, multiples and automatic. So by now, we have the reliable AR-15 style of rifle made by many manufacturers being sold to actual citizens. Many people have them set up to full automatic too, which may give men a boner, but is lousy for hunting and home defense. So I say again. These are weapons made to kill humans in war, period. You can parse it by saying they can be used for hunting and self defense. Well, that's true for the hunting part, but for self defense, not so much. They are light rifles, easy to carry and quick to shoulder, which is great for hunting and in battle. The ammo they use is powerful and can rip flesh to shreds and ventilate walls, so not good for self defense in your average neighborhood. It also doesn't have a really long reach, which makes it poorer for accurate long distance target shooting. I myself do not own an AR-15. But I do own a scout semiautomatic rifle that's based on the older M1 Garand. It's short but heavy, but can hit targets a long distance off since it fires 7.62X51 NATO rounds. I use it for target shooting, which is fun and challenging to try to hit something very far off with such a short rifle. I would never think of firing it at an intruder in my own home or neighborhood to defend myself since the rounds would go through my walls and other home's walls. The only applicable use in the average American neighborhood would be during a war. As such, since it's a impractical for home defense and is technically a weapon of war, I would gladly give it up if made illegal, but ONLY if all assault weapons were banned and removed from the hands of ALL citizens in this country right now. It'll never happen given the nuttiness and fanaticism surrounding guns in this country, but fair is fair and so is a level playing field.

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assaul ... on-of-war/

On the definition of weapons of war, do you realize that the precursors to the modern AR-15 style rifles were specifically designed as a more modern military replacement for those aging WWII rifles by an engineer named Eugene Stoner in the late 1950's? Read that, MILITARY REPLACEMENT RIFLE. These guns were originally marketed to the military, so that makes them weapons of war, period. Being marketed to the military, they of course wanted a rifle that was lighter, easier to carry and could select fire with one trigger pull in battle, single, multiples and automatic. So by now, we have the reliable AR-15 style of rifle made by many manufacturers being sold to actual citizens. Many people have them set up to full automatic too, which may give men a boner, but is lousy for hunting and home defense. So I say again. These are weapons made to kill humans in war, period. You can parse it by saying they can be used for hunting and self defense. Well, that's true for the hunting part, but for self defense, not so much. They are light rifles, easy to carry and quick to shoulder, which is great for hunting and in battle. The ammo they use is powerful and can rip flesh to shreds and ventilate walls, so not good for self defense in your average neighborhood. It also doesn't have a really long reach, which makes it poorer for accurate long distance target shooting. I myself do not own an AR-15. But I do own a scout semiautomatic rifle that's based on the older M1 Garand. It's short but heavy, but can hit targets a long distance off since it fires 7.62X51 NATO rounds. I use it for target shooting, which is fun and challenging to try to hit something very far off with such a short rifle. I would never think of firing it at an intruder in my own home or neighborhood to defend myself since the rounds would go through my walls and other home's walls. The only applicable use in the average American neighborhood would be during a war. As such, since it's a impractical for home defense and is technically a weapon of war, I would gladly give it up if made illegal, but ONLY if all assault weapons were banned and removed from the hands of ALL citizens in this country right now. It'll never happen given the nuttiness and fanaticism surrounding guns in this country, but fair is fair and so is a level playing field.

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assaul ... on-of-war/

Where to begin. From the top I guess. Yes I know about E.Stoner. Again I must reiterate the reason AR15 Stoners design was designated a WoW was its selective fire feature Does the civilian version have this feature? Or is it the fact it looks like the military version that warrants the classification? Then we better stop marketing certain stocks as they will make certain people all nervous and sweaty:

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=ruger+ ... m1_640.jpg

Also the AR15 was marketed primarily because the .223 round was smaller and a soldier could carry more ammo. Not because of selective fire as the M14 had selective fire already. You do realize That a civilian version of the M14 is made and marketed to civilians? As to AR15 being set up to full auto, I'll reiterate you need a class C license...not a boner.
I'm not sure why you are fixated on the .223 ripping flesh as all firearms bullets rip flesh. Shows you are being falling for the emo language of the left.
I'll correct you here about the .223 not being accurate. I suggest you read up on the national shooting matches. In service rifle competition, The AR15 beats the M14 and the 7.62 nato round. Yes the larger caliber M1 carbine (which it sounds like you have) I qualified expert with that round in a M14 during boot at Pendleton. Also remember Kresge's selling M1 carbines in barrels when I was 11. Try buying them today and see what they cost . I agree rifle caliber rounds are not best for home defense but trust me, you'll use what is at hand. Check Keltec as they have some innovative shotguns for home defense

[Darth Wang]

When all those unwanted children grow up on the streets because their parents couldn't afford to care for them, and then become criminals and gang members, I guess then you don't care about killing them...

[Spidey]

ROFL

Yes, the entire concept of ending abortion is to create a target rich criminal environment.

[Tunnelcat]

Woody, whether a rifle has selective fire or not and full auto or not, frankly, it's still a weapon of war. It's precursor was designed as a weapon of war. It's a rapid fire rifle, even in semiautomatic form, and can spew out a lot of rounds in seconds. I'm also guessing that with the military version, full auto is NOT the mode of choice for most soldiers with limited amounts of ammo on hand in the field either. It wouldn't be mine. Sight and shoot is far more efficient. Pray and spray is a waste of ammo, unless you're getting charged by a horde of zombies. And it's light, good for carrying in battle, but unfortunately, perfect for an average teen-aged male with no brains to carry and fire with ease. In fact, AR gun makers use that to market these weapons to own as a sign of manhood. Yeeeeeeah, uh huh. Underage males swaggering with their dicks and their hot lead phallic substitutes as a sign of manhood, an AR-style rifle. You many not own one, but there are a LOT of young males out there getting boners for one and they are considerably cheaper to buy than my very expensive rifle.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/28/11142116 ... of-manhood

Add in those now illegal bump stocks that some stupid moron came up with to get around our machine gun laws and you pretty much got the equivalent of a full automatic, as we saw in that Las Vegas mass shooting. The current AR-style rifles today are good for doing only one thing, killing as many living things as possible and as fast and violently as possible, with ease. That's what makes it good for war, even in it's civilian configuration. I mean, why else do all these militia bozos carry them? Either for war or a hard on. Geezus.

Yes, I realize my NATO rounds are just as deadly as .223 AR rounds, but weight of the ammo and the rifle makes far less desirable to carry around like a swaggering toy. Sure, many hunters use it for hunting because it's got a short 16 inch barrel and is good in the bush, but I don't hunt, just target plink. I'm guessing you live in a rural area. In that situation, I think any high powered weapon is a good idea for self defense from either an animal or a human. But in an urban area, it's a weapon of mass destruction, to people and property. I would no more use my rifle for self-defense inside my close neighborhood than a 50 caliber machine gun. I also wouldn't want to be charged with reckless endangerment if one of my wild rounds entered a neighbor's home while I was trying to hit some intruder. Yes, I do own a semi auto shotgun. But if an intruder ever gets into my home, it's my pistol, loaded with hollow points (least likely to get through walls), that will be my weapon of choice. Only if there's ever a full blown war or illegal revolution would I take it up in arms, because right now, it's NOT the government or even the occasional burglar, that I'm afraid of.

ROFL

Yes, the entire concept of ending abortion is to create a target rich criminal environment.

You can sit there and laugh at that comment, but that's what's currently happening. Republicans would rather let single mothers in poverty, especially minority mothers, eventually create child criminals than violate their tenet of no welfare in any way shape or form. Nor do they seem inclined to punish the deadbeat fathers who run off and abandon their "one night mistakes". Republicans can't be selectively pro-life for ONLY a fetus, then ignore the actual children. Life is life. The ONLY Republican who even remotely said something about that made one little comment after SCOTUS struck down Roe v.Wade, Asa Hutchinson, and it's been crickets ever since. Right now, it's: Oooh, we won and outlawed abortion!. Lets go further and attack EVERYTHING remotely left of center politically and see how far we can get, up to and creating an autocracy! Yee haa!" So instead of vilifying the left like it needs excising at all costs up to and including revolution, it's time work with them to solve the problem and not create something worse instead. Because the left's less than stellar track record ain't so great either with the dole out money to solve the problem welfare BS of the past.

https://vittana.org/how-poverty-influences-crime-rates

[Spidey]

Actually, I stand at this PC.