Realistically what can we do about guns when we have 430 million in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Okay, so why, if it is so weak, was it the standard service rifle for the U.S. military from 1969 until the 2010s, when it was largely replaced by the M-4 , (basically a lighter, shorter variant of the same rifle)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Okay, so why, if it is so weak, was it the standard service rifle for the U.S. military from 1969 until the 2010s, when it was largely replaced by the M-4 , (basically a lighter, shorter variant of the same rifle)?

Read it again, dummy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Such a stupid statement. Why would the department of defense specifically choose a weak weapon for soldiers.

You are a liar

Older weapons by DOD were more powerful per shot. Bigger bullet, more gunpowder, bigger range. It also penetration more. This mean that cover can be shot into.

They went to lighter weapon which carry more bullet at the time where military doctrine was to mass fire into jungle insteadf of precision firing of the bullet. They did no need the further range of the 7.62 when engagement was so close.

Need right tool for job time.

This previous person no lie, but you lack education of the subject matter expertise.

Let's study!

Too bad you didn’t study grammar as much as you studied tools for murdering people. Had to read your NRA nonsense three times to discern what you meant. What do you do for a living with such awful communication skills?

So you agree with PP. Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Such a stupid statement. Why would the department of defense specifically choose a weak weapon for soldiers.

You are a liar

Older weapons by DOD were more powerful per shot. Bigger bullet, more gunpowder, bigger range. It also penetration more. This mean that cover can be shot into.

They went to lighter weapon which carry more bullet at the time where military doctrine was to mass fire into jungle insteadf of precision firing of the bullet. They did no need the further range of the 7.62 when engagement was so close.

Need right tool for job time.

This previous person no lie, but you lack education of the subject matter expertise.

Let's study!

Too bad you didn’t study grammar as much as you studied tools for murdering people. Had to read your NRA nonsense three times to discern what you meant. What do you do for a living with such awful communication skills?

Engineer in non english environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

They aren't used in conventional wars. If you'd like to argue that they are used by lesser militaries then you'd also have to call Toyota pickup trucks "weapons of war." It's a rifle for hobbyists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

They aren't used in conventional wars. If you'd like to argue that they are used by lesser militaries then you'd also have to call Toyota pickup trucks "weapons of war." It's a rifle for hobbyists.

ok which conventional war in the last 20 years didnt infantry go around carrying m4s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

The white men who wrote the second amendment also owned other human beings at the time they wrote it. Nothing they wrote is credible or worthy of retaining. The entire document should be burned. It is soiled. We need another constitution not written by slavers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

They aren't used in conventional wars. If you'd like to argue that they are used by lesser militaries then you'd also have to call Toyota pickup trucks "weapons of war." It's a rifle for hobbyists.

ok which conventional war in the last 20 years didnt infantry go around carrying m4s?

AR-15s aren't MP4s.

[Anonymous]

How will the government regulate guns when we are the biggest seller of guns worldwide ? Including to our enemies..

Arms are a huge arm of the economy and the underworld/drug economy in the USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

Claiming the US is in any way comparable to Brazil with respect to crime is of course a flat out lie. And just as different are their gun control laws. Brazil has extreme gun control compared to the US, so, well, what point is this person trying to make exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

The white men who wrote the second amendment also owned other human beings at the time they wrote it. Nothing they wrote is credible or worthy of retaining. The entire document should be burned. It is soiled. We need another constitution not written by slavers.

No, we love the constitution. You can go live in a country without a constitution written by “slavers.”

Look, we know nobody cares about the deaths of americans that happen because of gun crime. We know that’s just an excuse liberals use to try to take guns away. (It’s for THE CHILDREN!)

You are never taking guns away. We know you will never stop trying. All communist regimes disarmed their population so they could kill them by the millions and millions. Great Britain and Australia are disarmed, look at the lives of their citizens when the government wants them to do something.

The Founders wanted our government to know we can defend ourselves against our government. Thus always to tyrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

The white men who wrote the second amendment also owned other human beings at the time they wrote it. Nothing they wrote is credible or worthy of retaining. The entire document should be burned. It is soiled. We need another constitution not written by slavers.

No, we love the constitution. You can go live in a country without a constitution written by “slavers.”

Look, we know nobody cares about the deaths of americans that happen because of gun crime. We know that’s just an excuse liberals use to try to take guns away. (It’s for THE CHILDREN!)

You are never taking guns away. We know you will never stop trying. All communist regimes disarmed their population so they could kill them by the millions and millions. Great Britain and Australia are disarmed, look at the lives of their citizens when the government wants them to do something.

The Founders wanted our government to know we can defend ourselves against our government. Thus always to tyrants.

What are you prattling on about? You sound like you need to be medicated.