quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

why isnt he saying this guy should be executed, what makes him different from the last guy?

Could be that this guy is ALREADY DEAD.

then why didnt he say good, we executed him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

why isnt he saying this guy should be executed, what makes him different from the last guy?

Could be that this guy is ALREADY DEAD.

then why didnt he say good, we executed him.

Because it's too soon to politicize white people shooting other white people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

why isnt he saying this guy should be executed, what makes him different from the last guy?

Could be that this guy is ALREADY DEAD.

then why didnt he say good, we executed him.

Because it's too soon to politicize white people shooting other white people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

... I was just thinking: Can you get a one-click 'thoughts and prayers' app for Android? That could make things a lot more quick and efficient in the future.

Great question, why don't you tweet him and ask...

https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/379689640115961856?lang=en

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Right, so how long till the next mass-slaughter, then? A month, two weeks? Get ready with those thoughts and prayers, folks!

What a callous, and horrifically insensitive remark.

True - it was harsh. Apologies to all.

Yet, I've begun to see growing cynicism amongst even Americans themselves about these mass-slaughters: there's a widespread expression of grief ... followed by no real policy changes whatsoever, least of all the radical policy change that I think it's becoming clear is now needed. At the same time the slaughters are happening with increasing frequency. I fundamentally disagree with the line that the immediate aftermath of a mass-killing is 'not the time for politics'. It's *absolutely* the time for politics: that's what politics is there for - to provide solutions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

... I was just thinking: Can you get a one-click 'thoughts and prayers' app for Android? That could make things a lot more quick and efficient in the future.

Great question, why don't you tweet him and ask...

https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/379689640115961856?lang=en

"We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred. May God grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst" Barack Obama, November 5th, 2017.

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/927337524808347648

This is a prayer I can get behind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Right, so how long till the next mass-slaughter, then? A month, two weeks? Get ready with those thoughts and prayers, folks!

What a callous, and horrifically insensitive remark.

True - it was harsh. Apologies to all.

Yet, I've begun to see growing cynicism amongst even Americans themselves about these mass-slaughters: there's a widespread expression of grief ... followed by no real policy changes whatsoever, least of all the radical policy change that I think it's becoming clear is now needed. At the same time the slaughters are happening with increasing frequency. I fundamentally disagree with the line that the immediate aftermath of a mass-killing is 'not the time for politics'. It's *absolutely* the time for politics: that's what politics is there for - to provide solutions.

Thanks Peon, no worries.
I hate to get involved in the never-ending gun control debates, BUT I will say this.

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

That would be a great start, another issue is, the amount of illegal guns we have in this country.
We have no way of knowing how many there are, and how do they get INTO the country?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini



Thanks Peon, no worries.
I hate to get involved in the never-ending gun control debates, BUT I will say this.

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

That would be a great start, another issue is, the amount of illegal guns we have in this country.
We have no way of knowing how many there are, and how do they get INTO the country?

quote:

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini



Thanks Peon, no worries.
I hate to get involved in the never-ending gun control debates, BUT I will say this.

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

That would be a great start, another issue is, the amount of illegal guns we have in this country.
We have no way of knowing how many there are, and how do they get INTO the country?

assault rifle
True Definition:
:any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire;

US Legal definition as set by the assault weapons ban:
:a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud, including various models of shotguns.

Now in the US, one can legally purchase a weapon that is capable of full or semi automatic fire with special permits issued by the ATF, these weapons can not have been manufactured after 1986, nor can any parts used to convert a semi automatic to full automatic have been manufactured after 1986. Since these weapons are unique, they are also expensive, usually starting at around $6000.

The permit process takes an average of 3 months from start to issue.

Now here is the problem with the congressional definition of what an assault rifle.

The pistol grip allows for a more stable aiming and control of the weapon, and was not originally a concept developed by the military, as it had been a common modification of various bolt action sporting rifles used by big game hunters on other continents.

It was a common conversion for short barrelled shot guns used in India as a last resort against tigers when hunting from an elephant.

The barrel shroud is just something to replace the wood fore stock of a rifle with something lighter than wood, and completely surrounds the barrel.

Now, as for the 'flash suppressor' argument, the liberal congressional member argument is that it makes the weapon harder to see when fired at night.

Bullshit, pure and simple bullshit.

The flash suppressor is to keep the muzzle flash from blinding the person pulling the trigger. Fire any weapon equipped with one of these at night and everyone is going to see the flash and know where you are.

So the only real argument is that these weapons are magazine fed, meaning that you can shoot a large number of rounds without having to reload, and uses a detachable magazine.

This is why a number of states banned high capacity magazines.

The problem with that is this.

But your statement:

quote:

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

I have a question for you.

Would you like to face a herd of these with a bolt action rifle?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini



Thanks Peon, no worries.
I hate to get involved in the never-ending gun control debates, BUT I will say this.

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

That would be a great start, another issue is, the amount of illegal guns we have in this country.
We have no way of knowing how many there are, and how do they get INTO the country?

assault rifle
True Definition:
:any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire;

US Legal definition as set by the assault weapons ban:
:a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud, including various models of shotguns.

Now in the US, one can legally purchase a weapon that is capable of full or semi automatic fire with special permits issued by the ATF, these weapons can not have been manufactured after 1986, nor can any parts used to convert a semi automatic to full automatic have been manufactured after 1986. Since these weapons are unique, they are also expensive, usually starting at around $6000.

The permit process takes an average of 3 months from start to issue.

Now here is the problem with the congressional definition of what an assault rifle.

The pistol grip allows for a more stable aiming and control of the weapon, and was not originally a concept developed by the military, as it had been a common modification of various bolt action sporting rifles used by big game hunters on other continents.

It was a common conversion for short barrelled shot guns used in India as a last resort against tigers when hunting from an elephant.

The barrel shroud is just something to replace the wood fore stock of a rifle with something lighter than wood, and completely surrounds the barrel.

Now, as for the 'flash suppressor' argument, the liberal congressional member argument is that it makes the weapon harder to see when fired at night.

Bullshit, pure and simple bullshit.

The flash suppressor is to keep the muzzle flash from blinding the person pulling the trigger. Fire any weapon equipped with one of these at night and everyone is going to see the flash and know where you are.

So the only real argument is that these weapons are magazine fed, meaning that you can shoot a large number of rounds without having to reload, and uses a detachable magazine.

This is why a number of states banned high capacity magazines.

The problem with that is this.

But your statement:

quote:

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

I have a question for you.

Would you like to face a herd of these with a bolt action rifle?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini



Thanks Peon, no worries.
I hate to get involved in the never-ending gun control debates, BUT I will say this.

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

That would be a great start, another issue is, the amount of illegal guns we have in this country.
We have no way of knowing how many there are, and how do they get INTO the country?

assault rifle
True Definition:
:any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire;

US Legal definition as set by the assault weapons ban:
:a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud, including various models of shotguns.

Now in the US, one can legally purchase a weapon that is capable of full or semi automatic fire with special permits issued by the ATF, these weapons can not have been manufactured after 1986, nor can any parts used to convert a semi automatic to full automatic have been manufactured after 1986. Since these weapons are unique, they are also expensive, usually starting at around $6000.

The permit process takes an average of 3 months from start to issue.

Now here is the problem with the congressional definition of what an assault rifle.

The pistol grip allows for a more stable aiming and control of the weapon, and was not originally a concept developed by the military, as it had been a common modification of various bolt action sporting rifles used by big game hunters on other continents.

It was a common conversion for short barrelled shot guns used in India as a last resort against tigers when hunting from an elephant.

The barrel shroud is just something to replace the wood fore stock of a rifle with something lighter than wood, and completely surrounds the barrel.

Now, as for the 'flash suppressor' argument, the liberal congressional member argument is that it makes the weapon harder to see when fired at night.

Bullshit, pure and simple bullshit.

The flash suppressor is to keep the muzzle flash from blinding the person pulling the trigger. Fire any weapon equipped with one of these at night and everyone is going to see the flash and know where you are.

So the only real argument is that these weapons are magazine fed, meaning that you can shoot a large number of rounds without having to reload, and uses a detachable magazine.

This is why a number of states banned high capacity magazines.

The problem with that is this.

But your statement:

quote:

I can't think of any reason, the average citizen should be able to legally buy an assault weapon.

I have a question for you.

Would you like to face a herd of these with a bolt action rifle?

hummm, how not sure you need an assault weapon to kill feral hogs.
Interesting phenomena down there in Texas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Okay, I get it---I am not a gun expert.

I still don't understand, why the average citizen needs to be able to "buy", high powered weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Okay, I get it---I am not a gun expert.

I still don't understand, why the average citizen needs to be able to "buy", high powered weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Okay, I get it---I am not a gun expert.

I still don't understand, why the average citizen needs to be able to "buy", high powered weapons.

Depends on what you are going to use them for.
Unless you are a great shot rifles are useless for hunting birds.
Due to the distance the round travels
and the fact that you are aiming upward and so they are not as safe.
You need a larger boar for bear or wild hogs than for deer.
The round that is good enough for deer will just make a bear or wild hog angry .
The round you need for bear or boar you will tear up the deer meat.
Each different thing you use a gun for can require a different gun.
I would prefer a shotgun for home defense but there are people who can't
handle the recoil who are better off with something light like a .223.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

hummm, how not sure you need an assault weapon to kill feral hogs.
Interesting phenomena down there in Texas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Okay, I get it---I am not a gun expert.

I still don't understand, why the average citizen needs to be able to "buy", high powered weapons.

Depends on what you are going to use them for.
Unless you are a great shot rifles are useless for hunting birds.
Due to the distance the round travels
and the fact that you are aiming upward and so they are not as safe.
You need a larger boar for bear or wild hogs than for deer.
The round that is good enough for deer will just make a bear or wild hog angry .
The round you need for bear or boar you will tear up the deer meat.
Each different thing you use a gun for can require a different gun.
I would prefer a shotgun for home defense but there are people who can't
handle the recoil who are better off with something light like a .223.

On the flip side, we have had far too many mass murders, with people using assault weapons in recent years.

I have to stand on the side of banning the sale/or at least making it a lot harder to buy, high powered weapons.
We ALL are entitled to our opinions.

Enough is enough for me, Bama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Okay, I get it---I am not a gun expert.

I still don't understand, why the average citizen needs to be able to "buy", high powered weapons.