Did he say something like this ? [video=youtube;vzDO86iSKWU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzDO86iSKWU[/video]
Because they determined that a soldier carrying more smaller rounds was better than one carrying fewer larger rounds?
this is what we call an "out of context soundbite". was she talking about all guns? all semi-auto rifles? all handguns? we have no idea, due to the propaganda nature of this dishonest video clip.
You are not going to 'assault' anyone shooting at you with an M-4 using an AR-15. It just ain't gonna happen. The M-4 will put 3 slugs in you before you can squeeze off even 1 or 2....The M-4 is a military assault rifle that uses the same ammo as an AR-15 but it is able to be full auto. The AR-15 is only semi-auto....(one shot per squeeze)...and...military assault rifles are able to have larger magazines. (more lead downrange quicker) military type assault rifles killed Mr. Mateen.
nah that would upset your toddlers and believe me you DO NOT want to do that https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/
As a military vet that used the M1, M14, and M16...I will tell you from experience that the heavier 7.62 is much more reliable for killing than the 5.56...Yes it is lighter and easier to carry, yes it is turned easily by body armor, canteens, helmets...The 7.62 is not, the 7.62 has a much more effective long range as well...So you go on believing what you like, I'll stick with my personal experience in Vietnam and Desert Storm. I also found the 45 ACP to be much more effective in close quarter combat.
Yes...same with marijuana and Cocaine and Heroin. Regulated like alcohol and prohibiting juvenile consumption. P.S. I would make Marijuana, Coca and Opium Poppies legal to grow. No more cartel, no more useless death, no more spending more $$$$ on a failed 'war on drugs.'
I can't believe we agree on something... but here it is!!! The drug war has been and remains a huge waste of time, money and effort.
I am a Conservative but I am not monolithic. Actually the more conservative position is to let We The People decide what we put into our bodies. Republicans and Democrats are using drugs for their own purposes.
If you want to ban semi-automatics I can at least understand that. Banning the above only harms innocent gun owners. The state interest is so comically minimal as to be ridiculous. Millions own rifles with these features and use them for hunting, sport shooting, preventing noise pollution, and increased accuracy. None of those features provide a significant advantage to any criminal. I am certain you've never been in the presence of one, but a suppressor does not make your gun anything near quiet as in Hollywood flicks. It is a marginal improvement, but important for protecting the hearing of neighbors and others nearby. A flash hider prevents your vision from being blown out at night. I am unaware of criminals ever using a bayonet lug, and if they wanted to it would be absolutely trivial to do so in violation of law. [hr][/hr] STOP ATTACKING MUSLIMS AND GUN OWNERS. I am sick of terrorists turning us into fascists. They are, unfortunately, winning the fight.
Depends on who you ask as to whether or not I'm liberal or conservative... and then I still don't pay them much mind.
Ya I hear ya....I think people's thinking lies somewhere between liberal and conservative as represented in the 'popular' media which is decidedly liberal..
Making both guns and marijuana mandatory doesn't end that war, it just makes government switch sides.
Making Marijuana legal does not mean 'mandatory.' People would be free to grow/use it or not. Making gun ownership/education mandatory would keep mass shootings from happening.
No one is advocating giving guns to 'idiots' but then what is your definition of 'idiot?' Conservative?
That's going to work really well as a deterrent against people who generally commit suicide at the end of their massacres, as this guy did, who was also a CITIZEN, as were the San Bernandino shooters. I'll go along with anybody HAVING a gun getting the death penalty, It's harsh but it worked in areas that were murder traps before, like Hong Kong and Singapore
Well, yes, but that's sort of beyond the scope here, I don't believe ANYONE should have guns really, except the Armed Forces and certain very special police, and certain VERY stringently regulated and licensed civilians, along the lines of private pilots but without all the knowledge requirements And only allow this if the number of these massacres is reduced to so close to zero it doesn't matter
What do you mean, ban possession of, or ban them altogether? If it's the latter, the existing ones will have to be collected by an amnesty then start with a clean sheet for it to work.
