Are there any bigger retards than people who 'draw the line' at assault weapons?

Luke Cage

Coffee Lover
Supporter
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
50,019
Reputation
18,224
Daps
257,566
Reppin
Harlem
Realistically ar-15 don't serve any practical purpose for the average civilian beyond use in mass shootings.

Thinking about it rationally. The 223/556 round is too weak for hunting, shoot a deer with it and unless you have perfect shot placement it's running off to bleed out somewhere. Obviously not gonna hit any ducks or other birds with it very easily because they're too small. bird shot is better.

Self defense is obviously not what it's used for either. Unless you gonna walk around opening carrying a rifle slung across your back 365 days a year. Most people feel more comfortable with a concealable pistol.

Home Defense is more feasible, but even then it's way too loud and will burst your eardrums and permanently damage your hearing the first time you actually have to use it indoors after hearing a bump in the night for the last time. Meaning it would only be good for one use and then any criminal can sneak up in your crib and kill you without you hearing them. Plus the round overpenatrates so it you live in an apartment or have close neighbors they getting bullets through their walls too,

That leaves it's primary use: A range toy. basically you are saying the lives of all these mass shooting victims are worth less than your freedom to have fun playing soldier. If i found out PS5's were among the leading causes of death of young people in this country, i wouldn't have problem switching to xbox.

That said, i still wouldn't ban them outright. If it were up to me, i would limit the use of AR15's to my interpretation of 2nd Amendment use only. Meaning you would need to be actively serving in a militia, and keep them locked in a militia armory when not on duty. Citizens have a right to form militia's and that what the second amendment is for. not for your right to have fun at the range.
 

Goat poster

KANG LIFE
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
19,414
Reputation
3,296
Daps
83,907
As an American that has lived in other countries for the past 10 years I have been able to look at the Culture of Americans from a different lens of that I grew up viewing.

I personally feel like America was born out of guns and will die with guns

We really can’t overstate how culturally guns are baked into American society.

Like lts the only “first world” country where the charter constitution promotes every citizen have one.

You can change laws, but it’s EXTREMELY hard to change culture.

That place is a lost cause when it comes to guns.

Americans have no idea how INSANE and PSYCHO they look to the rest of the world on gun issues.
 

Satsui no Hadou

CHICANO 🇲🇽 🇺🇸
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
1,421
Reputation
497
Daps
7,267
Going by your logic, why can’t I have access to anthrax, or a cache of plastic explosives? It’s this nihilistic outlook that leaves us as a nation without integrity. When we choose to disavow any and all progress for the sake of convenience speaks volumes of the corrupt and cancerous sentiment of this country.

Do I hate guns? No. I would readily use a weapon to defend my loved ones, even if it meant a stretch in prison. Do I need military grade equipment to defend myself? No, unless I’m facing a whole company or some shyt.
 

Satsui no Hadou

CHICANO 🇲🇽 🇺🇸
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
1,421
Reputation
497
Daps
7,267
Do you have a constitutional right to a super-sized soda?
Did we have soda in the 18th century? No? Then why should we still look to the constitution as an inviolable tract when it’s express purpose was to be shaped by the times we live in. These issues are particular to the current era, and as such should be dealt with in a responsible and impartial manner. It’s just sickening that life is so cheap when it comes at the expense of weapons.
 

east

Screwed up... till tha casket drops!!
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
4,966
Reputation
3,140
Daps
15,663
Reppin
The Bronx ➡️ New England
Did we have soda in the 18th century? No? Then why should we still look to the constitution as an inviolable tract when it’s express purpose was to be shaped by the times we live in.
do you think free speech should only be protected when it's expressed with a quill on parchment, or freedom of religion protected only if the founding fathers practiced it?
Going by your logic, why can’t I have access to anthrax, or a cache of plastic explosives?
you have no idea what you're talking about, both of those are legal for civilians to own. buying anthrax is somewhat annoying cause of the AEDPA, but plastic explosives require only a $200 tax/"shall issue" permit, as in the atf MUST give you one unless you're a convicted felon or w/e. the second amendment protected the private ownership of the most destructive weapons of its era (battleships), and it still does (private citizens can and do own fighter jets and ICBMs). yet i never see your types calling for their disarmament, instead it's always some feature-based "assault weapon" ban that makes them harder to use for women/the disabled, some licensing scheme to keep them out of the hands of minorities, or more taxes to keep them out of the hands of the poor. i'm actually convinced prohibitionists are way more pro-gun than me, they just want them in the hands of elites and rich cacs only.
 
Last edited:

desjardins

Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
16,930
Reputation
1,097
Daps
62,942
Reppin
Mustard Island
Banning assault weapons might help with mass shootings but not gun violence overall
It seems like the majority of these mass shooters get legal weapons through traditional means, what they would do if you cut off that access I'm not sure but it would at least create another hurdle for them.
Gun violence over all wouldn't be impacted by a ban though. These drillers have switches and high capacity mags for hand guns. It was a shootout in my area where they let off 40 shots with handguns
 

tuckgod

The high exalted
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
48,419
Reputation
14,684
Daps
180,450
"Assault" would be select fire.
Gun manufacturers advertise the weapons they sell to militaries and police as "assault rifles", because they are capable of select fire.

Adding the word "assault" in front of a firearm does not make it more or less deadly. It's just a stupid term the media loves to run with. They hate the features that modern firearm have like a previous poster said.

These two function the same way.

1.jpg






1.jpg


How is one more "assaulty" than the other? Because one has a adjustable stock?



A semi-auto fire arm is just that. Yes they are deadly, no one is disputing that.
Can you kill 20 people in 10 seconds with the first one?
 

ViShawn

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
14,778
Reputation
5,619
Daps
49,597
I was arguing with my sister last night about "Hollow Points" and she was saying no one should have access to them. I said you wan't damn hollow points in a handgun since they're defensive rounds, expand on impact, and stop at the target instead of exiting and hitting an innocent bystander.

People don't know what they're talking about on this subject so much of their ideas about firearms are already misinformed, from the movies or the media, therefore rooted in hyperbole.
 

Bolzmark

Superstar
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,230
Reputation
1,196
Daps
26,733
Reppin
ATL
I mean these folks who don't have the nuts to say outright they want to ban all guns completely, but instead will go 'well lets just get rid of the assault weapons because they are meant to kill people.' Newsflash morons, all guns are meant to kill people, that's why they're created and used. The reason all these psychos are shootin shyt up is because america creates crazy people and no one talks about it. If you could magically remove guns, these folks would use cars, knives, poison, whatever to hurt others. The issue isn't so much gun control, it's taking a long look at the society all around us and asking some hard questions about who this culture is birthing. Discuss.
Exactly. Whenever I hear gun control advocates say “but I still support the 2nd amendment” I’m like then you are at least partially co-signing this madness. America’s problem with guns starts with the worship and unwavering support of the 2nd amendment. Raising the required age at purchase to 21, universal background checks, and the outlawing of assault weapons might make a slight change but nothing significant. Be clear, assault weapons make up a small fraction of gun homicides in this country. In 2019, 394 people were killed with assault rifles. 6,395 were killed with handguns. The San Jose massacre a couple years ago was done by a middle aged man who legally purchased his guns, and he did it with handguns. So what then?
 

ViShawn

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
14,778
Reputation
5,619
Daps
49,597
I wish people trained more. It seems like many people think a gun is this magical object of destruction or something Black box that only certain people can use. Then some people think that they can pick it up all of a sudden and be John Wick.

People just need these conceptions demystified and that can only be done by training.
 

Luke Cage

Coffee Lover
Supporter
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
50,019
Reputation
18,224
Daps
257,566
Reppin
Harlem
"Assault" would be select fire.
Gun manufacturers advertise the weapons they sell to militaries and police as "assault rifles", because they are capable of select fire.

Adding the word "assault" in front of a firearm does not make it more or less deadly. It's just a stupid term the media loves to run with. They hate the features that modern firearm have like a previous poster said.

These two function the same way.

1.jpg






1.jpg


How is one more "assaulty" than the other? Because one has a adjustable stock?



A semi-auto fire arm is just that. Yes they are deadly, no one is disputing that.
I was about to congratulate us for having a gun debate without someone resorting to the "i know more about gun semantics than you" argument which never convinces anybody of anything. But nevermind.

Calling them assault rifles is incorrect yes, Also calling them sporting rifles is also bullshyt, but you never here many gun supporters debate the use of that term. A $800 M&P Sport is literally used by no one in competitive shooting. You would lose every match.

At the end of the day it js just a moniker. like calling it a boom stick or a yeet cannon. it's not treated as a genre defining term by the general public and you know this.
the constant complaining about the media's use of the term assault rifle is the most annoying aspect of the entire discussion. People are just being deliberately obtuse because they disagree with each other. Nobody is trying to debate the correct usage of gun terms. set your spell check to autocorrect that word to something you find more appropriate and the gun debate would still continue like before. If anything you should be happy they generalize and use vaque terms when speaking about gun legislation, because that'll just leave more room for loopholes if they actually write the law.
 
Last edited:

OneManGang

Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
18,331
Reputation
4,235
Daps
71,760
"Assault" would be select fire.
Gun manufacturers advertise the weapons they sell to militaries and police as "assault rifles", because they are capable of select fire.

Adding the word "assault" in front of a firearm does not make it more or less deadly. It's just a stupid term the media loves to run with. They hate the features that modern firearm have like a previous poster said.

These two function the same way.

1.jpg






1.jpg


How is one more "assaulty" than the other? Because one has a adjustable stock?



A semi-auto fire arm is just that. Yes they are deadly, no one is disputing that.
Is the first gun a bolt action rifle? I don’t think it is, but even still the AR15 outperforms it with speed of fire and magazine size doesn’t it?
 
Top