prices for "assault rifles"?

[Al]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK

Drug dealers should be deported to Alaska for life!


Deport them to Illinois. The state is so thoroughly F'd up a couple million drug dealers will probablyt enrich the State.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Zee)Six...again, Completely missing the mark...no pun intended.

But people who like sound bites from the media "high velocity", "high capacity" don't like the actual physics behind stuff, or any ACTUAL understanding of what they are quoting.

UFUK is one of those...


Like I said ... there is no 'official' adopted definition of a 'high velocity' round.

So how is that 'missing the mark'?

What's your definition, and IF there is an official definition then post the link. We are talking velocity only, not KE which most know is what really counts.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: billt460
The FBI interviewed the Orlando shooter no less than 3 TIMES. And after all of that they let him walk. Why? Because of political pressure from Obama's gang not to single out, and or harass Muslims. So it would not have mattered if the liberal Democrats had every law on the books they ever dreamed of. Stacking up gun laws, and ENFORCING them are 2 completely different things.


If the FBI is investigating someone that much, then it shouldn't matter what race or religion he is IMO. We need to strip that factor out of the equation. I don't really believe the FBI let him go just because they didn't want to look like they were profiling or harassing because he was Muslim. In hind sight (which is always 20/20), it's clear that this guy was raising red flags all over the place. What's going to eventually happen in this country is that people who raise red flags are going to receive special attention - way more than they do now. I think law enforcement it slowly turning up the wick on that.

The level of scrutiny is going to have to be heightened if there is any hope in foiling someone's plan of mass murder - and it won't be easy. If it can't be done, then we just all live and accept mass shootings/bombings/etc. Or maybe we should just take all laws away and let it be a free for all like back in the 1800s. Those who can shoot the best win - more good guys with guns will overcome the bad guys with guns. Make it an all out war. .

I think the gun law movement is heading towards trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands more than trying to take guns away from everyone. We all know the latter will never happen. And just so everyone knows, I totally support the 2nd Amendment, but I also support trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Can it be done mutually? ... I think people are trying and obviously there is no clear answer.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't really believe the FBI let him go just because they didn't want to look like they were profiling or harassing because he was Muslim.


http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/doj-guidelines-tied-fbi-hands-on-orlando-shooter/#!

"U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., in an interview with Fox News, said the Obama administration has tied the hands of the FBI with “political correctness.”

"Ron Kessler, who has written books on the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service, told G2 Bulletin that the FBI has institutional limits imposed on it to preclude continued surveillance and investigations on someone like Mateen, who swore allegiance to the Islamic State in a 9-1-1 phone call to police during the shooting".

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Like I said ... messed up, and the whole race/religion factor needs to be stripped. If someone raises red flags it shouldn't matter who it is.

 

[Ihatetochangeoil]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Originally Posted By: billt460
Then, on one hand you have Obama screaming and crying for more gun laws. While on the other he is demanding drug dealers be let out of prison, because he actually believes selling drugs, "Is not a violent crime". When you have a sitting President who is that F'ing stupid and delusional, and lacks any common sense what so ever, how can you possibly accomplish anything regarding crime reduction with firearms? It's become a criminal free for all out there..... Especially so if you're a radical Muslim under Obama's watch.


Drug dealers should be deported to Alaska for life!

Obama is what you get when the Internet orientated rich kids look for a good actor who looks exactly like the average Joe.

Just look up a picture of a white American, a black American and a Mexican. Then combine the 3 pictures and what you are looking at is Obama.

The NRA decide about gun laws and regs. They are funded by the gun manufacturers, far right and some US defence companies through rather indirect tax free means.



The subject of the OP is prices for "assault rifles". We are discussing laws in the USA. In 10 pages of posts, not one citizen of the USA has agreed with anything that has come from your overseas British insanity of a perspective. 3 pages ago you were told to F**** off. If I see one more comment from you I'm notifying administrators. You are a troll on this thread. What part of GO AWAY do you not understand?

To the readers: The NRA is funded by dues from 5 million members who politically agree with the NRA. I am an NRA member who goes to work every day and church on Sunday, loves my wife and children, pays taxes and carries concealed. Is am not a threat to society; but there is a reason why Texas has few mass shootings. And I don't live in Texas!

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If someone raises red flags it shouldn't matter who it is.


I agree. But the fact remains it does.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Originally Posted By: billt460
Then, on one hand you have Obama screaming and crying for more gun laws. While on the other he is demanding drug dealers be let out of prison, because he actually believes selling drugs, "Is not a violent crime". When you have a sitting President who is that F'ing stupid and delusional, and lacks any common sense what so ever, how can you possibly accomplish anything regarding crime reduction with firearms? It's become a criminal free for all out there..... Especially so if you're a radical Muslim under Obama's watch.


Drug dealers should be deported to Alaska for life!

Obama is what you get when the Internet orientated rich kids look for a good actor who looks exactly like the average Joe.

Just look up a picture of a white American, a black American and a Mexican. Then combine the 3 pictures and what you are looking at is Obama.

The NRA decide about gun laws and regs. They are funded by the gun manufacturers, far right and some US defence companies through rather indirect tax free means.



The NRA isn't "far right" at all. It's mainstream, for the most part. Ask any American that doesn't live in a major city. They support the NRA and it's stance on the 2nd Amendment.
TV mainstream media educated.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK

The NRA decide about gun laws and regs. They are funded by the gun manufacturers, far right and some US defence companies through rather indirect tax free means.




????

You've bought the media claptrap hook, line and sinker! There are no supportable facts to what you're saying. That's why you get such negative responses in this thread - your posts are based on fantasy and falsehoods.

The NRA gets 92% of its operating budget from its dues-paying members. Period.

They are in no one's pocket and the gun industry certainly doesn't fund the NRA.

The reason they are so gosh-darn effective is that when gun issues come up, those 5 million members of the NRA call, email, and write their congressmen and senators.

Pure, simple, voice of the people. Those politicians LISTEN when millions of voters ring them up!

Forget all the lies you've read, the media parrots the things that the anti-gunners spew...but little of it is true. If it were only lobbying and $$, the gun industry would've fallen years ago to political pressure.

But pressure from voters carries the issue. And pro-gun voters are pretty good at applying pressure...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Zee)Six...again, Completely missing the mark...no pun intended.

But people who like sound bites from the media "high velocity", "high capacity" don't like the actual physics behind stuff, or any ACTUAL understanding of what they are quoting.

UFUK is one of those...


Like I said ... there is no 'official' adopted definition of a 'high velocity' round.

So how is that 'missing the mark'?

What's your definition, and IF there is an official definition then post the link. We are talking velocity only, not KE which most know is what really counts.


I know that you want the Webster dictionary definition, and will defend any position to the death where there's "ambiguity".

UFUK is making stupid statements about classes of firearms and what should be banned based on his faulty understanding of "high velocity", that he's clearly learned from some source that uses it to be inflamatory.

I'm pointing out (and you agree) that "High Velocity" MEANS NOTHING in the debate, and he clearly doesn't have a grasp on what he's stating should be the deciding factor on legality and public ownership.

I'm not chasing your red herring on what constitutes high velocity, as it's not part of the discussion other than "2,600 fps versus 3,000 fps" defines what should/shouldn't be out there.

You, as you've stated, understand that "High Velocity" isn't the measure or the issue...so in your fight for literal understanding, take THAT up with UFUK...

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't want to start a huge argument, but I want to hear the reasons why having better background checks and not allowing suspected terrorist from buying guns is such a bad thing. It doesn't sound to me that these laws would have taken guns away from people or prevent people who are 'good citizens' from buying a gun. Keep it civil.


Gun laws are completely meaningless when they're not enforced. Which most aren't. Just look at Chicago if you require proof of that. Along with the fact any and ALL of these new laws theses liberals are currently crying for..... "increased background checks", all of this "gun show loophole" nonsense, etc., would not have stopped any mass shooting to date. Because the shooters involved all would have passed. Ft. Hood, (An officer and a gentleman in the United States Army. If you can't trust that Muslim, how can you trust ANY of them?) The Newtown shooters mother. The San Bernardino shooters. All passed legitimate background checks under the Brady Law, that the Democrats said time and time again would cure everything. And even if they failed these so called, "increased background checks", you will NEVER eliminate "Straw Purchases". It's impossible.

The Brady Law was supposed to be the end all, cure all when it was passed in the early 90's. It included the setting up of an entire background check system, (Insta Check), that was supposed to do everything they're now crying about, over 20 years later since it was passed. Nothing is ever good enough for these people, except a total ban on guns. Which is exactly what they've wanted all along. They just know they'll never get that through. So they keep chipping away. Never to shut up.... Ever.

The FBI interviewed the Orlando shooter no less than 3 TIMES. And after all of that they let him walk. Why? Because of political pressure from Obama's gang not to single out, and or harass Muslims. So it would not have mattered if the liberal Democrats had every law on the books they ever dreamed of. Stacking up gun laws, and ENFORCING them are 2 completely different things.

And the liberal gun grabbing Democrats will NEVER be satisfied. Now they're all crying for "Sensible Gun Laws". Are they telling us the 20,000 already on the books, that they spearheaded passage of are not sensible? Then why did they want them in the first place? At some point, we as free men and gun owners have to simply say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! We have reached that point decades ago.


So are you arguing for stricter gun laws, as its obvious the ones we have don't work? Or are you confirming that whenever the R neuters a gun control law, it no longer helps, and lets you easily point to it as faulty and blame the L?

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't want to start a huge argument, but I want to hear the reasons why having better background checks and not allowing suspected terrorist from buying guns is such a bad thing.

It doesn't sound to me that these laws would have taken guns away from people or prevent people who are 'good citizens' from buying a gun. Keep it civil.


What? This sensible question never appeared to be answered.

Shocking.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: bmwjohn
watching the hullabaloo over assault rifles, I again wonder if this is the time to get one? I remember when bushmasters were $400-500 at Wal-Mart, and should have gotten one. Don't really need one now, but thinking. What is a typical "good" price? Thanks! (I realise all the failures from the wife, FBI, night club design, etc.)but, as usual, it ends up being the rifles fault.
Actually an AR15 is not an assault rifle by any definition . Tt is a term used by TV and mainstream media to fool the uninformed idiot .

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Zee)Six...again, Completely missing the mark...no pun intended.

But people who like sound bites from the media "high velocity", "high capacity" don't like the actual physics behind stuff, or any ACTUAL understanding of what they are quoting.

UFUK is one of those...


Like I said ... there is no 'official' adopted definition of a 'high velocity' round.

So how is that 'missing the mark'?

What's your definition, and IF there is an official definition then post the link. We are talking velocity only, not KE which most know is what really counts.


I know that you want the Webster dictionary definition, and will defend any position to the death where there's "ambiguity".

UFUK is making stupid statements about classes of firearms and what should be banned based on his faulty understanding of "high velocity", that he's clearly learned from some source that uses it to be inflamatory.

I'm pointing out (and you agree) that "High Velocity" MEANS NOTHING in the debate, and he clearly doesn't have a grasp on what he's stating should be the deciding factor on legality and public ownership.

I'm not chasing your red herring on what constitutes high velocity, as it's not part of the discussion other than "2,600 fps versus 3,000 fps" defines what should/shouldn't be out there.

You, as you've stated, understand that "High Velocity" isn't the measure or the issue...so in your fight for literal understanding, take THAT up with UFUK...


LoL ... don't take it out on me. I have no bone with UFUK. I was simply making a comment that there is NO official definition (not even Webster, and probably not even a gun digest or similar documentation) of a 'high velocity' round. Everyone will make up their own definition - guess I chose 3000+ ft/sec. You and I agree, even though you may not think so.

 

[bmwjohn]

the latest seems to be that local cops were in the nightclub but were ordered to stand back while the shooting went on. at least thats what the internet says.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
So are you arguing for stricter gun laws, as its obvious the ones we have don't work?


I'm merely pointing out the obvious. By their own admission they're complaining they now want "sensible" gun laws to add to, (not replace), the F'ing worthless one's they fought so hard to pass over the last 6 decades. It would appear these no mind liberals have come full circle. Even they now believe their nonsense doesn't work. But like always, they want more of it.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't want to start a huge argument, but I want to hear the reasons why having better background checks and not allowing suspected terrorist from buying guns is such a bad thing.

It doesn't sound to me that these laws would have taken guns away from people or prevent people who are 'good citizens' from buying a gun. Keep it civil.


What? This sensible question never appeared to be answered.

Shocking.


No it really means most liberals are under educated when it comes to the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendment that the Democrats insist on destroying....wise up idiots. And I mean you guys are real idiots.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't want to start a huge argument, but I want to hear the reasons why having better background checks and not allowing suspected terrorist from buying guns is such a bad thing.

It doesn't sound to me that these laws would have taken guns away from people or prevent people who are 'good citizens' from buying a gun. Keep it civil.


What? This sensible question never appeared to be answered.

Shocking.


No it really means most liberals are under educated when it comes to the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendment that the Democrats insist on destroying....wise up idiots. And I mean you guys are real idiots.


If you can't comment without name calling, then don't comment at all. I asked to keep it civil.

So how does the 5th and 14 amendment protect people from better background checks and suspected terrorists from not legally buying guns. Buying and owning guns has many associated qualifiers defined by gun laws. Having better background checks should certainly not infringe on the people who deserve to own guns, only on those who don't. And allowing possible terrorists from easily obtaining weapons in this country seems pretty asinine.

 

[Robenstein]

You cannot have an individual right abridged or revoked without due process. That is basic legal 101. It is the reason the ACLU has been after the watchlist system for years. As it exists now, there is no clear cut reasons that qualify you to get on the list. It is indeed rather subjective. Indeed Senator Ted Kennedy got on it for a while and even little kids have been stuck on it. While Kennedy could call up the Justice Department and chew butt until he was off it, there is no way to challenge being listed for the average citizen. Therefore if you are put on a list and denied guns as it is, you are guilty until presumed innocent and there is no system in place that allows you to prove your innocence.

With how many cases of innocent people being stuck on the watchlist system, it is THE LAST thing you want tied to any rights, let alone gun rights.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
You cannot have an individual right abridged or revoked without due process. That is basic legal 101. It is the reason the ACLU has been after the watchlist system for years. As it exists now, there is no clear cut reasons that qualify you to get on the list. It is indeed rather subjective. Indeed Senator Ted Kennedy got on it for a while and there is an 8 year old boy stuck on it now. While Kennedy could call up the Justice Department and chew butt until he was off it, there is no way to challenge being listed for the average citizen. Therefore if you are put on a list and denied guns as it is, you are guilty until presumed innocent and there is no system in place that allows you to prove your innocence.

With how many cases of innocent people being stuck on the watchlist system, it is THE LAST thing you want tied to any rights, let alone gun rights.


Then they need to get a lot smarter and have better defined reasons why someone would get on such a list. Didn't the Patriot Act 'supposedly' infringe in the same way to some degree ... yet it seemed most people didn't have a problem with those incorporated laws/acts to help keep this country safer from terrorist activity.

People who raise red flags and are identified as someone that could possibly conduct acts of terrorism (mass shootings/bombings, etc regardless if it's tied to some Islamic radical movement or not) need to be heavily investigated and if found to meet the right criteria certain freedoms stripped, like owning and legally buying weapons. It's not much, but better than nothing. If these sycos were really [censored] bent to act, I'm sure they would find some way to get the weapons they needed, but it might be harder for them if not through legal means, and that might possibly alert law enforcement in other ways to take action.

I think terrorists see a huge opportunity in this country to commit mass shootings on soft targets like in San Bernardino and Orlando because they know they can operate in this country easily because their freedom is ensured. I bet if the ACLU headquarters had a mass shooting like in Orlando they might have a different viewpoint.

It's a sad reality, but as more and more of these mass shootings occur the more clear it will become that law enforcement needs to find ways to identify these type of people as early as possible and do something about it. It won't be easy, but what else is the answer? If there is no answer, then these incidents will probably just keep increasing in frequency and we just sit back and watch. And just hope you're not caught up in it someplace.

I'd like to hear some of you guys throw out YOUR ideas on what should be done to try and keep guns out of the wrong hands. Something, nothing ... what? I'm assuming most here are for keeping guns out of the wrong hands and in the hands of those who should have them ... or maybe not as long as you have yours?