Another reason why modern assault rifles like the AR15 should be re-banned from the civilian market

Mar 2019
1,255
538
Oklahoma
That's a little little GIF and not a counter-argument.
Are you saying my statement is inaccurate or illogical?
I'm saying it's stupid . . . and not meant to do anything but cause further argument.

You did everything but comment about what type of vehicle gun owners drive, how many teeth gun owners have and the size of a gun owner's manhood.

There are many, many things none of us "need" in this life but we're all about getting them.

I mean really . . . if you're just on here to troll and rile folks up that's one thing, but if you absolutely believe what you posted that's a whole different ballgame.
 
Jul 2011
82,041
47,612
Memphis, Tn.
I'm saying it's stupid . . . and not meant to do anything but cause further argument.

You did everything but comment about what type of vehicle gun owners drive, how many teeth gun owners have and the size of a gun owner's manhood.

There are many, many things none of us "need" in this life but we're all about getting them.

I mean really . . . if you're just on here to troll and rile folks up that's one thing, but if you absolutely believe what you posted that's a whole different ballgame.
Oh, so it's NOT inaccurate or illogical. You just think it's stupid.
I rest my case...

I made my living in sales & marketing. Best way to get people to buy just about anything is to make them afraid to not have it. Change a want to a need in their perception and they will pay just about anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnotaFrayed
Jun 2013
18,774
16,778
Here
Then, the "BUYBACK" program/concept/idea should be renamed.

It's not REALLY a buy back at all...
If someone BOUGHT something, paying them something for it, is buying it from them. It may not be the same person "buying it back" that they bought it from. Most people are not that dense that they can't understand that or that they are bothered by it in the context it is used.'

Do you actually have an argument that you would like to present about "buybacks" or whatever term in your head, that you would like to apply to it?
 
Jun 2013
18,774
16,778
Here
If you can't handle an AR 15 then stay away from them. Admit your limitations.
Is that supposed to be some sort of "argument" for anything or just an empty attempt at some sort of snipe?

As mentioned by Hollywood, AR-15's and those styled like them are intended to be relatively easy to use in a military assault, but if one is not in service and duty to a well regulated militia, they aren't trained in combat or in facing trained and professional soldiers.

Cowards choose them to make themselves look scary to their fellow Americans or to shoot into crowds of people who mostly have not, until more recently, felt that living in America equated to living in a combat zone where anyone targeted civilians. What sort of nation have we created, but an armed one where some people want the currently mentally disturbed or those that will develop mental illness after they purchase such weapons, to be able to be able to buy assault style weapons as easily as anyone can.

If one wants to interpret the second phrase of Amendment II literally, then "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" and "the people" to mean all people, then that would include ALL people, with NO infringements. If one raises their hand and says no, there are some limitations, they are amending the amendment, NO LESS and perhaps a lot more, than those who see Amendment II as applying to "the people" in service and duty to "a well regulated militia" because of "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and "the people" of a well regulated Militia, needing to keep and bear arms, in order to carry out their service and duties to a common defense.

In 1792, "the people" (citizen soldiers) of a "well regulated Militia" required all able bodied, free, white men, between the ages of 18 and 45. Today, "the people" (citizen soldiers) of a "well regulated Militia" are those who volunteer to make a commitment of service and training.

Now, as then, those "people" need to be able to "keep and bear arms" without their capacity to do so, being infringed.

Once again, in spite of the NRA, Trump and Trump shill's (you?) fear propaganda, that someone is going to do away with Amendment II, it is and will remain safe in place, as it ever was, because the concept of well regulated militia remains strong, as a means of an organized, but decentralized, means of a common defense for the nation as well as each individual state, from a tyrannical federal government, by "people" who are well trained, but NOT professional soldiers. They are still citizen soldiers.
 
Jul 2014
39,893
10,810
midwest
If someone BOUGHT something, paying them something for it, is buying it from them. It may not be the same person "buying it back" that they bought it from. Most people are not that dense that they can't understand that or that they are bothered by it in the context it is used.'

Do you actually have an argument that you would like to present about "buybacks" or whatever term in your head, that you would like to apply to it?
If the gubmint never owned it, and never sold it, logically they can't buy it back.

Or, are the gun manufacturers and gunshop owners going to have to buy them back?
 
Jun 2013
18,774
16,778
Here
If the gubmint never owned it, and never sold it, logically they can't buy it back.

Or, are the gun manufacturers and gunshop owners going to have to buy them back?
Keep at it. You're not making any sense. What difference does it may who buys them, in the context of the what is done. It is a term of speech, they are being BOUGHT......Compensation is being made. Drop the "back" from the term if you like, it makes no difference to the action or what would be done and what was done in Australia. Like I said, call it what you like. That does not change, what would occur.

Again, do you have an argument regarding eminent domain and if you do, please make it and direct it at the guy you keep claiming you didn't vote for, but keep trying to defend.
 
Jul 2014
39,893
10,810
midwest
Keep at it. You're not making any sense. What difference does it may who buys them, in the context of the what is done. It is a term of speech, they are being BOUGHT......Compensation is being made. Drop the "back" from the term if you like, it makes no difference to the action or what would be done and what was done in Australia. Like I said, call it what you like. That does not change, what would occur.

Again, do you have an argument regarding eminent domain and if you do, please make it and direct it at the guy you keep claiming you didn't vote for, but keep trying to defend.
If the gubmint wants to call it a "BUY" program, that would make sense.

Calling it a "BUYBACK" program does not make sense.

I don't think Americans would be in favor of an Australian style buy program, or confiscation program...

Some would, but many would not...
 
Mar 2019
1,255
538
Oklahoma
Oh, so it's NOT inaccurate or illogical. You just think it's stupid.
I rest my case...

I made my living in sales & marketing. Best way to get people to buy just about anything is to make them afraid to not have it. Change a want to a need in their perception and they will pay just about anything.

Dude. Stupid means it's both . . .
 
Jul 2011
82,041
47,612
Memphis, Tn.
Dude. Stupid means it's both . . .
Nope, you fail to provide any logical REASON it's "stupid".
"It's just stupid" is generally something one says when they can provide no objective evidence that something is illogical or inaccurate. It's what kids do.
 
Aug 2016
1,763
320
under a rock near NC / GA