Banning AR-15s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the liberal arguments are based on emotion and talking points. They have zero understanding about firearms. I showed libs pictures of 3006, .308win and .223 next to each other and asked them which one would they ban. They all say 3006, and have no idea the smallest one, the .223 is the one the ar-15 uses

Here's an argument from a self-proclaimed redneck who knows a lot about guns: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the liberal arguments are based on emotion and talking points. They have zero understanding about firearms. I showed libs pictures of 3006, .308win and .223 next to each other and asked them which one would they ban. They all say 3006, and have no idea the smallest one, the .223 is the one the ar-15 uses

Oh boy you sure fooled them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the liberal arguments are based on emotion and talking points. They have zero understanding about firearms. I showed libs pictures of 3006, .308win and .223 next to each other and asked them which one would they ban. They all say 3006, and have no idea the smallest one, the .223 is the one the ar-15 uses

I care about rifle wounds because they are most difficult to survive, especially for kids. Working in healthcare, it's very clear people survive handgun wounds (unless to brain/heart of course) far easier than rifle wounds.

I care about guns in general because even if criminals turn to knives, at least I won't have to check my sleeping child anymore to ensure a bullet didn't penetrate their window (and yes, I've had to check my sleeping child due to gun shots in my alley and know of neighbors who found bullets that penetrated windows). At least fewer bystanders caught in targeted drive by shootings; you have to be up close and personal to get a knife wound in.

you realize musket wounds are even worse? If you survive the shot you died of infection due to the low velocity and all the germs on the clothing that entered the wound . Also you saY nobodody is banning hunting rifles. But now you oppose rifles period. So you want people to hunt with handguns? What do you actually want?

Which is why the musket is the preferred weapon of mass murderers. I can’t wait for the US Army to wake tf up and start giving our boys muskets.

[Anonymous]

There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15, or anything remotely like it.

"Well regulated" means REGULATED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

That’s irrelevant. As the article describes, an AR-15 bullet will pierce through a person, the wall behind them and a person standing behind that wall. They are extremely powerful and are not used (by normal people) for hunting. Why does the average Joe need that much power?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the liberal arguments are based on emotion and talking points. They have zero understanding about firearms. I showed libs pictures of 3006, .308win and .223 next to each other and asked them which one would they ban. They all say 3006, and have no idea the smallest one, the .223 is the one the ar-15 uses

I care about rifle wounds because they are most difficult to survive, especially for kids. Working in healthcare, it's very clear people survive handgun wounds (unless to brain/heart of course) far easier than rifle wounds.

I care about guns in general because even if criminals turn to knives, at least I won't have to check my sleeping child anymore to ensure a bullet didn't penetrate their window (and yes, I've had to check my sleeping child due to gun shots in my alley and know of neighbors who found bullets that penetrated windows). At least fewer bystanders caught in targeted drive by shootings; you have to be up close and personal to get a knife wound in.

you realize musket wounds are even worse? If you survive the shot you died of infection due to the low velocity and all the germs on the clothing that entered the wound . Also you saY nobodody is banning hunting rifles. But now you oppose rifles period. So you want people to hunt with handguns? What do you actually want?

Bow and arrow. That’s how real men hunt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15, or anything remotely like it.

"Well regulated" means REGULATED.

the militia not the weapons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

That’s irrelevant. As the article describes, an AR-15 bullet will pierce through a person, the wall behind them and a person standing behind that wall. They are extremely powerful and are not used (by normal people) for hunting. Why does the average Joe need that much power?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

That’s irrelevant. As the article describes, an AR-15 bullet will pierce through a person, the wall behind them and a person standing behind that wall. They are extremely powerful and are not used (by normal people) for hunting. Why does the average Joe need that much power?

But 3006 is okay? It’s far more powerful. I have a Soviet rifle that the 7.62x54R round would blow limbs off people . You know nothing about firearms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

That’s irrelevant. As the article describes, an AR-15 bullet will pierce through a person, the wall behind them and a person standing behind that wall. They are extremely powerful and are not used (by normal people) for hunting. Why does the average Joe need that much power?

That is bullet - not the gun that goes through walls.

The.223 round is used in lots of rifles. It is known primarily for ranch rifles to shoot varmint. Any time the military chooses a bullet it means that there will be lots of brass made and reduces ammunition costs of reloads for the public. So more guns get made that shoot that round.

It is a cycle that has been around since ww1 pretty much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

That’s irrelevant. As the article describes, an AR-15 bullet will pierce through a person, the wall behind them and a person standing behind that wall. They are extremely powerful and are not used (by normal people) for hunting. Why does the average Joe need that much power?

That is bullet - not the gun that goes through walls.

The.223 round is used in lots of rifles. It is known primarily for ranch rifles to shoot varmint. Any time the military chooses a bullet it means that there will be lots of brass made and reduces ammunition costs of reloads for the public. So more guns get made that shoot that round.

It is a cycle that has been around since ww1 pretty much.

you are talking to people who are told and parrot that .223/5.56 nato are “large caliber”

[Anonymous]

Your typical deer rifle at .308 is way more powerful than a .223.

Literally the marine basic sniper rifle is very common to use for hunting.
You can buy some wicked assault rifles that fire .308 - you do not hear about them because as they are wickedly powerful they are expensive and so is the ammo for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your typical deer rifle at .308 is way more powerful than a .223.

Literally the marine basic sniper rifle is very common to use for hunting.
You can buy some wicked assault rifles that fire .308 - you do not hear about them because as they are wickedly powerful they are expensive and so is the ammo for them.

I used to have an M1A, miss it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15, or anything remotely like it.

"Well regulated" means REGULATED.

the militia not the weapons

What militia is everybody a member of? How is it regulated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the liberal arguments are based on emotion and talking points. They have zero understanding about firearms. I showed libs pictures of 3006, .308win and .223 next to each other and asked them which one would they ban. They all say 3006, and have no idea the smallest one, the .223 is the one the ar-15 uses

real question..do you wank it to your guns?

How simple of a human do you have to be to have an obsession with a weapon? Do you really have nothing better going on in your life?

I don't have a single friend who owns a gun. You know what we all own? Beautiful homes and large investment accounts so we can spend time with our family and insulate us from morons like you.