Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Gun Control

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 20 ... 37, 38, 39, 40  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 10:37 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
  It's stunning how little he actually knows about how different guns function.

That, coming from the idiot who wrote this?

Artie60438 wrote:
   
Can you shoot between 400 to 800 rounds before reloading on a deer rifle like you can on an AR-15?

Funny.

Do have a link for that alleged statement or did you pull it out your ass?



As a matter of fact, Artie, I do have a link - a link which has just been freshly pulled out of my ass.
Savor the aroma.



happy jack wrote:
http://nofree.forumotion.com/t18520p25-gun-control

Subject: Re: Gun Control    Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:52 pm



"He continues to embarrass himself despite my pleas to stop."
Wow! You actually did some research to find that quote. Unfortunately you didn't include my original comment on that subject because you're a dishonest troll. Enjoy Very Happy  
Artie60438 wrote:
AR-15 can easily be modified to shoot between 400 to 800 rounds a minute.
So once again you have embarrassed yourself. Well done,wll done indeed!
This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute



Artie60438 wrote:
   
Can you shoot between 400 to 800 rounds before reloading on a deer rifle like you can on an AR-15?

https://www.bumpfiresystems.com/

I didn't include your original comment because it is irrelevant. This modification can be performed upon a large variety of semi-automatic weapons and is not specific to the AR-15.
Now, when you get a chance, could you please demonstrate your claim that 400-800 rounds per minute can be fired without reloading, you uninformed, ridiculous cunt?


"He continues to embarrass himself despite my pleas to stop."
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 11:07 am

https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-shooting-timeline-conversations-with-shooter-omar-mateen-and-police-released-145128970.html

The FBI omitted portions of the transcripts where Mateen named the group or individual to whom he pledged his allegiance amid the attacks.
When questioned in a Monday press conference on the reason for omissions in the transcript, FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper said, “We’re not going to propagate violent rhetoric that comes from other people whether it be here or overseas.”


Plus, we don’t want to piss off any Muslims and make them even more 'peaceful' than they already are.



Attorney General Loretta Lynch also addressed the transcript omissions on Sunday.
“The reason why we’re going to limit these transcripts is to avoid revictimizing those who went through this horror,” Lynch told CNN. “But it will contain the substance of his conversations. And there were three conversations between this killer and negotiators.”
According to the transcripts released Monday, Mateen did not reveal his feelings about homosexuals nor the LGBT community during those calls.
“We’re still exploring why he chose this particular place to attack,” Lynch said.


Yes, for the life of me, I just can’t understand why someone who pledges allegiance to a religion that advocates throwing homosexuals off of roofs would decide to stage his attack on a club that is frequented by homosexuals.
We will investigate further and get back to you on that, pronto.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 11:33 am

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:
   
Can you shoot between 400 to 800 rounds before reloading on a deer rifle like you can on an AR-15?

https://www.bumpfiresystems.com/

I didn't include your original comment because it is irrelevant. This modification can be performed upon a large variety of semi-automatic weapons and is not specific to the AR-15.
[b]Just more reasons to ban them
Embarassed wrote:
Now, when you get a chance, could you please demonstrate your claim that 400-800 rounds per minute can be fired without reloading, you uninformed, ridiculous cunt?
I was mistaken,but reloading is just a minor detail when a clip can hold up to 100 rounds.

Artie60438's on happy jack's gutter balls wrote:
"He continues to embarrass himself despite my pleas to stop."
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 11:42 am

happy jack wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-shooting-timeline-conversations-with-shooter-omar-mateen-and-police-released-145128970.html

The FBI omitted portions of the transcripts where Mateen named the group or individual to whom he pledged his allegiance amid the attacks.
When questioned in a Monday press conference on the reason for omissions in the transcript, FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper said, “We’re not going to propagate violent rhetoric that comes from other people whether it be here or overseas.”


[b]Plus, we don’t want to piss off any Muslims and make them even more 'peaceful' than they already are.
You Are More Than 7 Times As Likely To Be Killed By A Right-Wing Extremist Than By Muslim Terrorists
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 11:50 am

Artie60438 wrote:
   
Just more reasons to ban them

Ban what?
Semi-automatic hunting rifles?




Artie60438 wrote:
   
Embarassed wrote:
Now, when you get a chance, could you please demonstrate your claim that 400-800 rounds per minute can be fired without reloading, you uninformed, ridiculous cunt?
I was mistaken,but reloading is just a minor detail when a clip can hold up to 100 rounds.

The difference between using a 100 round magazine and your claim that an AR-15 can fire 400-800 rounds per minute without reloading is not a “minor detail”, you lying fuck.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 11:55 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
   
Just more reasons to ban them

Ban what?
Semi-automatic hunting rifles?




Artie60438 wrote:
   
Embarassed wrote:
Now, when you get a chance, could you please demonstrate your claim that 400-800 rounds per minute can be fired without reloading, you uninformed, ridiculous cunt?
I was mistaken,but reloading is just a minor detail when a clip can hold up to 100 rounds.

[b]The difference between using a 100 round magazine and your claim that an AR-15 can fire 400-800 rounds per minute without reloading is not a “minor detail”, you lying fuck.
My primary point was that an easily modified assault rifle can shoot between 400 and 800 rounds. Now stop acting like a jackass. Cut your losses while you can.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 12:16 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
   
My primary point was that an easily modified assault rifle can shoot between 400 and 800 rounds.

Any gun, modified, unmodified, bolt-action, magazine fed, semi-automatic, revolver or blunderbuss, can fire between 400-800 rounds, and more.
What in the fuck are you even talking about?



Artie60438 wrote:
   
Now stop acting like a jackass. Cut your losses while you can.

I have no “losses” to cut.
It seems that those are all yours.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 4:40 pm

[quote="happy jack"]
Artie60438 wrote:
   
My primary point was that an easily modified assault rifle can shoot between 400 and 800 rounds.

Any gun, modified, unmodified, bolt-action, magazine fed, semi-automatic, revolver or blunderbuss, can fire between 400-800 rounds, and more.
What in the fuck are you even talking about?


Artie60438 wrote:
   
Now stop acting like a jackass. Cut your losses while you can.
Now you've reverted back to your usual obtuse trolling. Typical Sleep
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 9:13 am

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/7-dumb-things-the-left-has-blamed-the-orlando-terrorist-attack-on

7 DUMB THINGS THE LEFT HAS BLAMED THE ORLANDO TERRORIST ATTACK ON


By: Phil Shiver | June 16, 2016

Liberals are at it with the blame game again.
While they desperately avoid mentioning radical Islamic terrorism, we've put together a list of the 7 dumbest things the Left has claimed are responsible for the Orlando terrorist attack.

1.  Republicans
Of course. The left wasted no time in politicizing the massacre using the opportunity to attack the Grand Ole Party. A New York Times op-ed said this after blaming the GOP’s supposed politics of hate:
“As the funerals are held for those who perished on Sunday, lawmakers who have actively championed discriminatory laws and policies, and those who have quietly enabled them with votes, should force themselves to read the obituaries and look at the photos.”

2.  Christians
An ACLU attorney blamed the “Christian right” for the attack, saying they “created this anti-queer climate.”

3.  Ted Cruz
The left even got around to blaming poor Ted Cruz. An editorial on Patheos stated:
“In November of 2015, Cruz attended an anti-gay conference with known ‘Kill the Gays’ Pastor Kevin Swanson, who said on that very stage that gays should be ‘put to death.’ Cruz happily walked on stage and shook Swanson’s hand, and gave his own ‘pro-traditional-family-values’ rhetoric. But now, Cruz wants to act like he’s ‘pro-gay’ in an attempt to gather us around his Muslim-hating table. No thanks.”

4.  The NRA
No surprise here. The left always runs to their favorite scapegoat in the wake of these attacks.

5.  Donald Trump
President Obama has a particularly tough time speaking the words “radical Islam.” But rarely has he ever been so fired up as he was Tuesday when he assailed Donald Trump’s rhetoric. After the attack, however, Obama simply called for calm.

6.  An AR-15
Let's get this straight: the terrorist DID NOT use an AR-15.
But Liberals run scared at the mention of an “assault rifle” so of course they're going to prey on those fears.
In fact, one liberal journalist claimed he had PTSD after firing one … yet there are preteen girls who use AR-15’s and are fine with it.

7.  "Toxic masculinity"
This has to be one for the record books of stupidity. Only a crazy liberal could even come up with such a bizarre term. The left wing news site Salon claims “toxic masculinity” is the common theme in Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen’s life, and therefore a main cause for the attack.

Why can't the left admit radical Islam is the problem?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 10:23 am

The gun lobby and the gun loons tell us this is a "hunting rifle."


This Is the Assault Rifle Used by the Orlando Mass Shooter
Developed for US special operations forces, the weapon is known as the "Black Mamba."





The MCX "innovative weapon system." -Sig Sauer


Since the massacre in Orlando early Sunday morning, pro-gun pundits have come out in force to argue that the weapon used in the attack is not an assault rifle. The gun lobby prefers to call these weapons "modern sporting rifles," euphemistic ammo it can fire in an ongoing semantic debate. But make no mistake: What the Orlando attacker used was a weapon of war. It was designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Witness this harrowing audio captured by a bystander outside the Pulse nightclub in which Omar Mateen fires 24 shots in 9 seconds.

According to a federal law enforcement official, the rifle Mateen used to murder and maim more than 100 people was a Sig Sauer MCX. Mateen legally purchased the weapon, similar to an AR-15, on June 4 in Port St. Lucie, Florida, near where he lived. (He legally purchased a Glock 17 handgun the following day, which he also carried during the attack.)

Sig Sauer promotes the MCX as "a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment."
Sig Sauer bills the MCX as "an innovative weapon system built around a battle-proven core." The company says it "stands as the first rifle to be silenced from the ground up. It also accepts a broad array of accessories, enabling you to build a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment." It has a military-spec trigger and a magazine capacity of 30 rounds. According to the book Guns of Special Forces 2001-2015, the MCX is known in military circles as the "Black Mamba" and was developed at the request of the US Army's special operations forces.

Although the legal civilian version of the gun fires on semi-automatic, it can be highly lethal. Indeed, like many of his recent predecessors, Mateen was able to unleash a devastating barrage of gunfire. The law enforcement official declined to comment on the total number of rounds fired in the attack. But, he said, it was "obviously a lot."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/assault-rifle-used-by-orlando-mass-shooter
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 10:30 am

I Used an Assault Rifle in the Army. I Don’t Think Civilians Should Own Them.

The massacre in Orlando this week, in which the shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX, has renewed arguments for banning assault weapons, but even talking about these guns in America can become a game of semantics. People obsess over terminology like literary scholars. I’ve taught college English for almost two years now, and for all the fulminating against the culture of political correctness, I’ve never seen language scrutinized like the language of armaments and gun control. There is a mechanical difference between the M-4 I carried in Afghanistan and a civilian assault rifle, but given the way we trained and shot (using semiautomatic mode), there is almost no distinction. When I look at a photo of myself in Afghanistan — on a combat mission in July 2009 — I find myself examining the gun. I could buy that rifle online, including all the accessories, with minimal difficulty. I can’t go back to Afghanistan, at least not now. I can’t be 25 again. I can’t recapture the fear or the wonderment or the grief — for a recently deceased friend — that I felt in that instant. But the weapon I carried could be mine again, with only slight variations. I could once again own a little part of that regrettable era.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/magazine/i-used-an-assault-rifle-in-the-army-i-dont-think-civilians-should-own-them.html?_r=0
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 11:46 am

edge540 wrote:
The gun lobby and the gun loons tell us this is a "hunting rifle.








The pants-wetters and the nancy-boys tell us that this is not a hunting rifle.



Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 12:31 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
The gun lobby and the gun loons tell us this is a "hunting rifle.








[b]The pants-wetters and the nancy-boys tell us that this is not a hunting rifle.
sigh You never get tired of embarrassing yourself,do you?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 1:08 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
The gun lobby and the gun loons tell us this is a "hunting rifle.








The pants-wetters and the nancy-boys tell us that this is not a hunting rifle.




Yes, I have no doubt Wayne, Cousin Eddie or jack could drop an elk or grizzly at 300 yards using these "hunting rifles". lol!
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 2:28 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
The gun lobby and the gun loons tell us this is a "hunting rifle.






The pants-wetters and the nancy-boys tell us that this is not a hunting rifle.

sigh You never get tired of embarrassing yourself,do you?




Exactly how did I embarrass myself?
I merely posted a picture of this, ....




.... a Ruger 10/22 plinking rifle after it was tricked out so as to terrify lily-livered liberals.

BOO!!!!
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 2:28 pm

happy jack wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-shooting-timeline-conversations-with-shooter-omar-mateen-and-police-released-145128970.html

[i]The FBI omitted portions of the transcripts where Mateen named the group or individual to whom he pledged his allegiance amid the attacks.

DOJ and FBI Release Full Transcript of Orlando 911 Call

Quote :
Why the change? From DOJ's statement:

Quote :
The purpose of releasing the partial transcript of the shooter's interaction with 911 operators was to provide transparency, while remaining sensitive to the interests of the surviving victims, their families, and the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

We also did not want to provide the killer or terrorist organizations with a publicity platform for hateful propaganda. Unfortunately, the unreleased portions of the transcript that named the terrorist organizations and leaders have caused an unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime. As much of this information had been previously reported, we have re-issued the complete transcript to include these references in order to provide the highest level of transparency possible under the circumstances.

Full transcript is in the links.

Seems like a poor decision, since it was publicly known he pledged allegiance to ISIS. And they were already praising the attack. If that's what they were trying to prevent, it seems a bit naive.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 4:21 pm

Police State Violates Rights of Gun Enthusiasts

Quote :
The guns seized included long-range weapons as well as handguns. A camouflage helmet with what appeared to be night goggles was also recovered.

Three thousand rounds, drugs, bulletproof vests.  Obviously there's no need to worry.  This could just have been the next Omar a day before his attack.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/21/2016, 5:16 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
The gun lobby and the gun loons tell us this is a "hunting rifle.






The pants-wetters and the nancy-boys tell us that this is not a hunting rifle.

sigh You never get tired of embarrassing yourself,do you?

[b]Exactly how did I embarrass myself?
It's your whole argument. Do you even read the reviews of your posts?
Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well this is undoubtedly one of the most ignorant posts that you've ever written.

Edge then weighed in..

edge540 wrote:

I'm wondering if our resident gun genius knows that a typical bolt action hunting rifle holds only 4 or 5 rounds and is loaded ONE round at a time.

Sure doesn't look like it. Given that fact, that post is the most stupid thing I've ever read here.
Getting cited for "stupidest thing I've ever read here" is no easy accomplishment considering we've had knuckleheads like URight and Tiger posting here.
Congratulations cheers
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/23/2016, 1:39 pm

edge540 wrote:
   
Although the legal civilian version of the gun fires on semi-automatic ....

.... as does an ordinary hunting rifle.



edge540 wrote:
   
.... it can be highly lethal.

.... as is an ordinary hunting rifle.



What a coincidence.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/23/2016, 1:40 pm

edge540 wrote:
I Used an Assault Rifle in the Army. I Don’t Think Civilians Should Own Them.

The massacre in Orlando this week, in which the shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX, has renewed arguments for banning assault weapons, but even talking about these guns in America can become a game of semantics. People obsess over terminology like literary scholars. I’ve taught college English for almost two years now, and for all the fulminating against the culture of political correctness, I’ve never seen language scrutinized like the language of armaments and gun control. There is a mechanical difference between the M-4 I carried in Afghanistan and a civilian assault rifle, but given the way we trained and shot (using semiautomatic mode), there is almost no distinction. When I look at a photo of myself in Afghanistan — on a combat mission in July 2009 — I find myself examining the gun. I could buy that rifle online, including all the accessories, with minimal difficulty. I can’t go back to Afghanistan, at least not now. I can’t be 25 again. I can’t recapture the fear or the wonderment or the grief — for a recently deceased friend — that I felt in that instant. But the weapon I carried could be mine again, with only slight variations. I could once again own a little part of that regrettable era.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/magazine/i-used-an-assault-rifle-in-the-army-i-dont-think-civilians-should-own-them.html?_r=0



What point are you attempting to make?
That one man's opinion should abridge the rights of everyone else?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/23/2016, 4:48 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
   
Although the legal civilian version of the gun fires on semi-automatic ....

.... as does an ordinary hunting rifle.



edge540 wrote:
   
.... it can be highly lethal.

.... as is an ordinary hunting rifle.



What a coincidence.
Nope, contrary to gun lobby bullshit, an "ordinary hunting rifle" does not have the capability of firing 30 rounds of high velocity rounds that were specifically designed for the military in under 30 seconds.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/23/2016, 4:50 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
I Used an Assault Rifle in the Army. I Don’t Think Civilians Should Own Them.

The massacre in Orlando this week, in which the shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX, has renewed arguments for banning assault weapons, but even talking about these guns in America can become a game of semantics. People obsess over terminology like literary scholars. I’ve taught college English for almost two years now, and for all the fulminating against the culture of political correctness, I’ve never seen language scrutinized like the language of armaments and gun control. There is a mechanical difference between the M-4 I carried in Afghanistan and a civilian assault rifle, but given the way we trained and shot (using semiautomatic mode), there is almost no distinction. When I look at a photo of myself in Afghanistan — on a combat mission in July 2009 — I find myself examining the gun. I could buy that rifle online, including all the accessories, with minimal difficulty. I can’t go back to Afghanistan, at least not now. I can’t be 25 again. I can’t recapture the fear or the wonderment or the grief — for a recently deceased friend — that I felt in that instant. But the weapon I carried could be mine again, with only slight variations. I could once again own a little part of that regrettable era.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/magazine/i-used-an-assault-rifle-in-the-army-i-dont-think-civilians-should-own-them.html?_r=0



What point are you attempting to make?
That one man's opinion should abridge the rights of everyone else?

The point is that I find his opinion much more credible than yours.
Regulating weapons of war does not abridge the rights of gun worshiping lunatics.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/24/2016, 1:49 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
   
Although the legal civilian version of the gun fires on semi-automatic ....

.... as does an ordinary hunting rifle.



edge540 wrote:
   
.... it can be highly lethal.

.... as is an ordinary hunting rifle.



What a coincidence.

Nope, contrary to gun lobby bullshit,  an "ordinary hunting rifle" does not have the capability of firing 30 rounds of high velocity rounds that were specifically designed for the military in under 30 seconds.

Exactly. And as I pointed out earlier, no self respecting hunter would ever use such a weapon to "hunt."   Comparing an assault weapon to an "ordinary hunting rifle" is a losing argument, because it simply has no basis in reality.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6030

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/24/2016, 7:21 pm

Scorpion wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
   
Although the legal civilian version of the gun fires on semi-automatic ....

.... as does an ordinary hunting rifle.



edge540 wrote:
   
.... it can be highly lethal.

.... as is an ordinary hunting rifle.



What a coincidence.

Nope, contrary to gun lobby bullshit,  an "ordinary hunting rifle" does not have the capability of firing 30 rounds of high velocity rounds that were specifically designed for the military in under 30 seconds.

Exactly. And as I pointed out earlier, no self respecting hunter would ever use such a weapon to "hunt."   Comparing an assault weapon to an "ordinary hunting rifle" is a losing argument, because it simply has no basis in reality.  



Since posting this twice didn’t seem to be enough, here it is again.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting

Your opinion of hunters notwithstanding, please, browse this gallery of hunting rifles and then explain how they function differently from your very scary assault rifles.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/24/2016, 7:50 pm

happy jack wrote:
Since posting this twice didn’t seem to be enough, here it is again.[/b]
Oh trust me. It's more than enough. You have put on an amazing clinic on how to embarrass yourself.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   

Back to top Go down
 
Gun Control
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 38 of 40Go to page : Previous  1 ... 20 ... 37, 38, 39, 40  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: