Why defend the school murderer?

Cute....but you know exactly what I mean.

 

How about you answer my question first?

Why not just take away their machines designed to kill en masse ....... from everyone? Will the Sun not come up tomorrow if that happens overnight? What will change in your day to day life? Will 'you' feel personally violated if you had to hand over your machine specifically designed to kill en masse, or do you have it for some other sinister reason?

 

Yeah, thats clear enough

Meaning nothing

Meaning nothing

I never claimed anything about them being political.
Now you're just going to make this up as you go?
Hilarious

I never made any claim about the military joining me. More exaggerations

More of your exaggerations, You claim because I said The US military wouldn't stand a chance against an armed citizen revolt. I was threatening civil war?
Nobody but you could ever think of anything so out of context.
But you go right ahead. lol

So you think if somebody says the US military wouldn't stand a chance against an armed citizen revolt, they would shoot on sight?
Your exaggerations prove how clueless you really are.

And the exaggerations get even more crazy.

Well, you think someone expressing what would happen if, means they are threatening civil war so your assumptions have no value.
Sorry

My father was in the first graduating class of the AF academy and his first command was the North American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado. Where 20% of his officers in silo's would refuse to launch during simulated nuclear strike test over and over because they couldn't live with the fact of launching.

Bomber groups have turned back during simulated attacks of the US from Russia and we calculate those percentages in our strike force attack forces.

And these are attacks against Russia.

I have spent 20 years in US Army aviation and these conversations have been discussed millions of times to include classes I have attended covering this topic. No pilot I ever talked with outside of class would fire on American citizens in a civil war with the government no matter who is giving the orders. No bomber group would attack a US city killing millions of Americans over any US civil war.

It is estimated that more than half our US military ground forces would refuse to fire unless fired upon and about the same would still refuse to kill US citizens.

These are not mindless robots who will obey any command. They also have wives, husbands, and children, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers that would be killed is such an attack. But here you are regurgitating some nonsense about obeying the chain of command? If you were ordered to kill Americans on sight, is that what you would do? I doubt you have ever held a gun much less would even know how to use one.

Larger Local Sheriffs offices are lucky to have a couple hundred officers on staff at any given time policing a million people in a single county. You think they would stand a chance?

Even the Japanese Navy command REFUSED to attack the American continent stating their would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

So while you play in pretend land thinking you know anything about the US militaries response to a civil war in this country, you also forget that US soldiers will choose sides as well.

But it was fun reading your fairy tale book ideas about something you are absolutely clueless on

 

No, I can only go off what you say. Are you saying you’ve only been told to care about shootings and not school deaths from fentanyl? Or that you are completely uninformed on drug use?

You are welcome to explain what you mean. I can only respond to the very direct claim you posted. It is false. Period. If you don’t post what you really mean, what’s the point of posting at all?

 

That would be because the US has a constitution that addresses a government by the people. Not a government over the people.
We don't live under the boot heals of the government like Australia does.

You need look no further than the history of examples of citizens giving up their guns to their government.
Just because you guys did it, doesn't mean US citizens will make the same mistake.
Maybe you should talk to some Venezuelan families who gave up their guns in 2012.
How did that work out for them.

 

If I said what I really mean, I'd quickly have my arze booted by Staff. So, sometimes you need to read between the lines.

 

Why don’t we all hand over our savings and rely on the govt to divvy up everything we have to those most “in need”? Dont worry it’ll be fair and no one will want for anything.

Sounds like a good idea Leftists have also suggested, like taking away everyone’s guns and relying on them to protect us all.

Because we have guns and without them, the govt could easily decide that the above is our new way of life.

 

Ooooohhh. Sometimes people get upset and feel the need to post content that violates pf rules.

All one would have to do to remedy the situation is educate themselves a bit before they post. Think about what they are posting and maybe do a little research since they are sometimes pontificating from a different hemisphere. There is no way most could know about fentanyl deaths in school here except by researching it a little.

Obviously the people firing others up about school shootings aren’t going to educate their targets. So those targets have to take that responsibility themselves. They just need to learn a bit about what they wish to post about. Then they won’t be so upset at being misinformed and feel the need to violate forum rules.

I don’t feel the need to violate rules here even though sometimes I make mistakes and do inadvertently. I find it’s simple just to educate myself and post verifiably correct information. And if on very rare occasions I post my opinions, I make it clear they are just opinions. If one doesn’t make definitive statements about things they are ignorant of, everything goes more smoothly for everyone.

 

what's a machine designed to kill en masse? why do our civilian police officers have them-are they appointed to kill civilians en masse? or is it just a stupid term you made up hoping it would convince the low wattage that people shouldn't own guns that we have owned for 100 years

 

Oh...okay. You want me to say it. The AR-15 for starters. Baby steps, wot? Is it not a killing machine, one capable of killing many people in the one event? Is that not its sole purpose?

 

well that's just plain moronic because more people are killed each year with beatings. It can be used as a killing machine just as a gallon of gasoline can be. But almost no one buys AR 15s for that purpose. The fact that you think that is the sole purpose of the AR 15 pretty much disqualifies you from ever having your posts taken seriously by those of us who actually know WTF we are talking about

 

Well, it is apparently the weapon of choice of those hell bent on killing en masse with, at my guess, at least half of the mass shootings involving one. If you have one, what would happen if you did not have it tomorrow. Will the sky fall in, the Sun not rise.....what?

(Further, its original design was for the military but when the NRA (or similar) got all ballsy about it, it was made available to the civilian market with some modifications, yes?)

 

yet more disinformation from you or ignorance. 75% of mass shootings involve handguns. The NRA had nothing to do with colt marketing a modified patent to private citizens in a form that is similar to rifles that private citizens have been buying for decades and similar to the MI Carbine that our Federal government sold to us NRA members for decades.

 

Well, I don't think you are right. As I said, from mere observation from afar, it seems to me that at least 50% of the deadliest mass shootings have involved the AR-15. And again from memory, I am pretty certain the AR-15 had its genesis in the Armalite rifle used by US Forces in the Vietnam War, yes. It was later adapted by manufacturers for civilian sales after the NRA (or similar mob) began a push for it, yes?

If you have one, what would happen if you did not have it tomorrow. Will the sky fall in, the Sun not rise.....what?

 

you are changing the goal posts-you went from saying most mass shootings to 50% of the deadliest shootings. which is still WRONG. Yes, the AR 15 and the M16 have a common heritage. So what. And no the NRA did not push for that-COLT did because they wanted to make money-that's what corporations do. I don't up my rights just to please scumbags who hate free people. and those pushing for gun bans don't give a damn about victims. they don't like the politics of those of us who oppose their authoritarian wet dreams

 

*It was unintentional. I always had in mind the worst, but I did fail to include the adjective. I still reckon I am right but I'll leave it to you to show the evidence that I am wrong.

I said NRA (or simlar), yes. I am sure I read somewhere that some gun organisation was a catalyst in having the "Armalite" adapted for civilian purchase. You want me to go look?

 

do your best-it was the maker Colt. they wanted to sell a product. the gun was always legal, no laws needed to be changed-especially after our government was selling lots of us real military rifles-MI Garands and MI Carbines

 

BTW it is a good marketing move for a maker of a military rifle to offer as similar a rifle as legally possible to civilians. WHY-because you have millions of men (and now women) who were trained how to use, take down, maintain and often do armorer's duties (replacing worn parts) on the rifles. the military contract guarantees cheaper magazines, cheaper parts, cheaper ammunition. which is why so many WWI veterans bought springfield rifles for hunting, and Colt 1911 pistols for home defense or target shooting. Same for WWII vets for the MI Carbine, MI Garand and the same pistol. Vietnam veterans bought lots of the semi auto version of the M14 rifle and of course AR 15s.

 

Yeas...it was this mob.

Link.

 

I don't see anything about them pushing COLT to make a citizen legal rifle that was similar to the M16

 

Here you go. From Wiki:

 

The first AR-15s sold to civilians in 1964 was the Colt AR-15 Sporter.

The concept of the AR-15 being a sporting rifle predates the adoption of the M-16 as the standard issue infantry weapon in the US military in 1966-67. The Sporter AR-15 was introduced to the civilian market 45 years before Wiki claims the similar term was coined.

 

Take it up with Wiki, not me.

 

Deleted

 

Yeah! Sometimes I feel like


But I would get into soooooo much trouble