DescentBB

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:12 pm 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.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 8:58 am
How about the the female fetus, do they not have a say?

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:46 pm
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?

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:46 pm 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/

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:46 pm 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

Spidey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:24 am ROFL

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