ChrisWeigant.com

GOP Leaderless On Gun Safety

[ Posted Wednesday, September 18th, 2019 – 16:39 UTC ]

This was supposed to be the week when President Donald Trump unveiled his preferred plan for gun safety reform. He still might do so tomorrow. But so far, the entire process on the Republican side of the aisle has appeared rudderless and leaderless, due to Trump's ever-increasing vacillations on what he'd be prepared to support. Mitch McConnell has doubled down on this leaderlessness by insisting that he will not move on any bill until Trump expressly signals his support for it. The buck gets passed back and forth like the political hot potato it is. No Republican wants to be the one with his name associated with an anti-gun law, because they all live in terror of the political power of the National Rifle Association -- which isn't going to support any new gun laws at all. Congressional Republicans are looking for Trump to lead the way out of this conundrum, but Trump seems increasingly incapable of doing so.

Guns are one of those subjects that Trump obviously doesn't feel all that personally invested in. Unlike subjects where he's been pretty consistent (if awful) in his views for decades -- like immigration, to name just one -- Trump has never been all that big a gun guy. He sticks his finger into the political winds and says what he thinks his base wants him to say, but he's just as comfortable charting his own course and bucking the N.R.A. -- sometimes within the space of a single day. At an earlier White House meeting with congressional leaders, Trump actually publicly berated the Republicans for being bought and paid for by the N.R.A. But nothing actually emerged from this meeting, because every time Trump says he's for some idea, he then gets an earful from either the N.R.A. themselves or from his aides and he quickly backtracks. In other words, he is about as inconsistent as can be imagined, leaving the entire debate leaderless on the Republican side.

He's followed this vacillating script for the past month, after the multiple mass shootings over the summer. First he's for improving background checks, then he's against it. Then maybe he's for it again... nope, he contradicted himself hours later. This is precisely why McConnell is acting so cowardly on the issue, since he knows that anything he manages to get passed through the Senate could easily be undercut by a single scathing Trump tweet. This would mean any Republican who voted for the bill would now face not only the wrath of the N.R.A., but also the wrath of Trump supporters. No wonder Mitch is demanding Trump clearly support something before he makes a single move.

After the shootings in Gilroy, California, El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, it seemed there might be enough support to pass some sort of gun safety law. However, the shootings all happened right at the start of the monthlong August congressional vacation, so the issue has died down somewhat. However, each new mass shooting puts it right back on the front burner again, and sadly enough there will probably be another mass shooting that shocks the conscience of the nation within a few weeks. It's become such a regular occurrence that another one seems bound to happen before long. So the issue will never just fade completely away in the political world.

Democrats, of course, have already acted. The House has passed a number of bills, including a universal background check bill, which have been sitting in Mitch McConnell's inbox for months. Nancy Pelosi is planning on passing other such bills in the next few weeks, and she's even trying to work with the White House in an effort to get Trump on board with some of them. This has proven tough to do, because of Trump's inability to decide what he can and cannot support.

A draft of a possible background check bill that is weaker than the Democratic version (but still stronger than what we've got now) just circulated amongst Senate Republicans. At first this was reported to be a draft "from the White House," but that was immediately pronounced false by White House staff. Perhaps it was drafted by the attorney general's office, but at this point nobody's willing to even admit ownership. Of a draft bill, mind you -- it's not even a solid proposal yet. When Trump refuses to lead, everyone else in the GOP fears any taint of ownership of any particular idea, obviously.

The likeliest outcome of all this is that nothing gets done. I say this because that's how the issue has always played out over the past few decades. The power of the N.R.A. is greater than the fact that over ninety percent of the public is crying out for universal background checks. As Elizabeth Warren likes to point out, nothing shows the inherent corruption in our political system as an issue that nine-in-ten people want to see happen but one special interest group doesn't.

The only reason the Republicans are even considering doing something this time around is that they are beginning to realize how much it is hurting them with suburban women, who used to be a loyal part of the Republican base but are increasingly fleeing the extremism of the party under Trump. Mothers are worried about the safety of their children's schools, and they're beginning to vote accordingly. That spells trouble for Republicans, which is why they're even considering any action at all.

Trump, of course, sees the whole thing through the lens of how it will affect him politically. One the one hand, he'd love to have a big signing ceremony at the White House, perhaps even with Pelosi sitting next to him (there are rumors that Pelosi is offering this as an enticement). Trump has so few legislative wins to brag about (the unpopular tax cut being one of the only ones, really) that he would love to have at least one more to point to while campaigning. He'd also love to shore up his support in the suburbs. But at the same time, he's also frightened that the Second Amendment single-issue voters in his base will either turn against him or at least stay home and not vote for him. So he's flailing around trying to come up with some plan that both the N.R.A. and suburban mothers can support. Something about mental health that doesn't even address gun sales or ownership, perhaps?

Maybe Trump will show some leadership and roll out a plan tomorrow. Maybe it'll actually have some specifics. Maybe Trump will remember the next day that he supports it, instead of badmouthing his own plan on Twitter. It could happen. But absent such leadership, it's virtually certain that nothing will happen, with Mitch McConnell refusing to act without Trump's blessing. So far, the signs aren't exactly encouraging, when an administration draft bill is suddenly disavowed by the entire administration, before anyone even had a chance to weigh the specifics and either support the plan or oppose it.

Democrats have led on this issue, and are continuing to lead. There's a whole spectrum of ideas on the Democratic side, but they've smartly led with the ones that have the highest level of public support. Beto O'Rourke got a lot of attention for his mandatory buyback of assaults weapons proposal last week, but there is no draft bill for such an idea, and there likely won't be any time soon, since most Democrats see this as going too far. Beto's not even in Congress anymore, so he can't even propose such a bill. But there are plenty of other ideas which do have broad support within the Democratic Party, and those that haven't already landed on Mitch McConnell's desk will soon get House floor votes. In the Senate, there actually is a bipartisan push for some legislation, but McConnell refuses to allow any of it to go forward until he hears from the White House. So far, he's gotten nothing but vacillation and contradiction from Trump. The entire effort is now in Trump's hands, and if he can't decide what he can support then nothing is going to happen. If he does put forth a proposal -- and then continues to support it over time -- then perhaps we might see some action. But at this point, that's a pretty big "if."

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

67 Comments on “GOP Leaderless On Gun Safety”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    The video is powerful: https://twitter.com/hashtag/BackToSchool?src=hashtag_click

    Starts as a "here's what I need to go back to school" with kids getting backpacks, etc. & then shows what they have to do to prepare to get shot.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    As Elizabeth Warren likes to point out, nothing shows the inherent corruption in our political system as an issue that nine-in-ten people want to see happen but one special interest group doesn't.

    Republicans will let children be mown down every day before they'll act. There's so many levels of disgraceful they illustrate every single day.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    GOP LEADERLESS ON (insert topic)

  4. [4] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Undiluted cowardice from the GOP, who'd have thunk that?
    These people dropped their draws for the NRA long before Trump, the bearded clam, ever slithered into their ranks.

    lol, Mr W...Silly man. Why, it's Trump's inconsistencies that all told, make up one great big consistency. A rookie mistake that's easily overlooked.

    The alleged bombing of the Saudi oil refinery by Iran stinks to high heaven. My Spidey senses tell me this is the doing of someone trying to provoke the unshaven mollusk into pounding Iran. There's hope, of course, given that Trump gets his dance steps from the Kremlin, Tehran's big brother, Trump is unlikely to take the bait.
    I don't like the coincidence that Bolton was bounced almost simultaneously as these 'so advanced that even America's own anti-incoming shit' still hasn't figured out what happened. Wreaks like WMD's in Iraq. You can be sure as Trump is a dickhead that the US will get zero support from NATO, until it looks deeply into the series of events. *curious how no fatalities have been mentioned, nor have any wailing mothers of lost Saudi sons been seen.

    I call bullshit.

    LL&P

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    @'nuck

    For once we agree. I call your comments 'BULLSHIT' as well..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have said it before and I'll say it again. There is no more solution as far as the guns angle. Everything against guns that can be done under the second has been done. The only recourse if you really want to address crowd based Mass shootings is to go with the mental health angle.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While some may think you hit the bullseye with this article, that is looking at the wrong end of the bull.

    As Mayor Pete said, "We can no longer accept the unacceptable."

    If ten per cent of citizens voting (or not voting) combined with the NRA can keep an issue that 90 per cent of citizens want from being enacted that shows our democracy is not working properly.

    And articles aboot the show (Dems valiantly passing bills in the House that will not become law and Republicans doing nothing) is part of the problem because it is just spotlighting the symptoms and ignoring the cause- big money infecting our political process.

    But it does show a possible solution.

    If ten per cent of citizens voting combined with an organization can thwart what 90 per cent of citizens want then 10 percent of citizens can certainly make a difference on something that 80 per cent of citizens want- getting the big money out of politics.

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    7 continued:

    Then we can actually begin to get real action on the myriad of problems that the show is designed to prevent.

    Enough with the Hog Reports already, Les- I mean CW.

    As Les Nessman said while repeating the same mistake he was just corrected on "Perhaps Mr. Rodrigeeeez will be up to par in his next tournament."

    Perhaps you, CW, will be up to par on your next article.

    Get Real.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    This kind of semantics is not useful.

    That's all they have is semantics..

    Many words in English are derived from Brand names. The brand name Kleenex is not generic, by definition. The generic English word kleenex is about a million times more common in actual use.

    Exactly...

    The context is that Michale was talking about the use of "AK-47" and "Kalashnikov" in news coverage and political discourse.

    Yes, it was.. As per the usual, those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together get it...

    Those who don't... Don't...

    It's an empirical question to what extent the terms are used generically, and to what extent they're used as specific brand names. My guess is that they usually refer either to the specific make and model, or to equivalent firearms made to the same specs as off-patent models. But I acknowledge that it's just a guess.

    And your guess is based on ( I assume) a lack of familiarity with firearms.. No offence intended..

    Those who know firearms and have carried them since they were 17... for THOSE people AR-15 and AK-47 are generic terms used to describe a class of weapons..

    Pictures don't lie..

    https://www.google.com/search?q=AR-15&sxsrf=ACYBGNTR5Nju_JLPq3_DmFCvlgjq1HNyVQ:1568895059183&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_ysTF7dzkAhUKXa0KHf9iCgMQ_AUIEygC&biw=1527&bih=806

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all screamed to high heaven about Justin Trudeau, about how he was so awesome and how he was so much better than President Trump..

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEyetKpXkAA1GwH?format=jpg&name=small

    Once again, ya'all's feet are planted firmly in ya'all's mouths..

    I am ALMOST beginning to feel sorry for ya'all, what with ya'all getting slammed to the ground time and time again...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The context is that Michale was talking about the use of "AK-47" and "Kalashnikov" in news coverage and political discourse.

    Yes, it was.. As per the usual, those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together get it...

    Those who don't... Don't...

    I was also talking about it, in the context of law making..

    If Democrats ban "AR-15s", gun manufacturers will simply STOP production of the AR-15 and restart production with the AR-16...

    Viola Ban rendered impotent..

    There **MUST** be some very specific items mentioned in the law that bans the rifle.. Capacity, Muzzle Velocity, Stickey Outey Thingies...

    Democrats MUST identify these specific ban points...

    And here is where Democrats will run into trouble.

    If Democrat identify the logical and rational specifics, they will find that it applies to almost ALL rifles..

    And THAT will violate the 2nd Amendment.

    But, hell.. If Democrats REALLY want to be logical about it and curb gun violence, handguns is what they need to go after... Handguns used in gun violence surpass rifles used by a factor of 10...

    But there again, Democrats run into the problem of the 2nd Amendment..

    There is simply NO WAY to ban a firearm. The reasoning cupboard is bare...

    Repeal the 2nd Amendment and heavily modify the 4th Amendment..

    THEN... And ONLY then...will Democrats be able to have their gun ban and gun confiscation...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for Justin Trudeau...

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/09/19/12/18669194-7481711-image-a-2_1568893412564.jpg

    The hits just keep on coming...

    You poor poor Democrats...

    Once again, reality and the FACTS reaches up and slaps ya'all hard across the face....

    Maybe this will finally be your wake up call..

    I doubt it..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    In light of the fact that ya'all must be feeling quite down in the dumps..

    I will endeavor to take it easy on ya'all today..

    I feel bad for ya...

    Maybe I'll cut out a bit early... Give ya'all time to lick your wounds and collect your wits...

    We'll see how the day goes..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ

    I am all in for banning specific makes of firearms!

    And, once again you totally miss the point..

    It's not about specific MAKES.. It's about specific ITEMS that must be specified in the law..

    You ban an AR-15, gun manufacturers simply build a modified AR-15 and call it an AR-16...

    You MUST ban specific ITEMS on the nomenclature of the firearm..

    SO, give me a list of specific parts of a rifle to be included in your ban..

    Can ya do that??

    I realize that the problem with banning these semi-automatic rifles is that gunmakers need only tweak their designs just a little to avoid fitting the definition for one of the banned weapons — and this is a problem.

    So, after all this time, you FINALLY come around to agreeing with me..

    Hallelujah... And it's about time..

    Here’s a admission for you, I don’t have all the answers to this!

    That's not an admission. That's a statement of fact.

    But the problem is you don't have ANY answers...

    All ya'all do is scream and yell and whine and cry and say "DO SOMETHING!!!!"

    But you can't identify even ONE of those "somethings"...

    I know that if these weapons were not available, 30 people could not be killed in under 2 minutes.

    Bullshit.. You want to limit mags to 10 rounds.. Anyone with a modicum of skill can train themselves to empty 3 10 rnd mags into people in under 2 mins..

    Addressing the TOOL does no good, because they are a PLETHORA of tools out there that kills..

    Australia PROVES that beyond any doubt..

    But, if you address the PERSON.. If you address the mental health of the PERSON.. THEN you have a fighting chance to stop the Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

    Unlike you, who has stated on here that these deaths by gun violence should be viewed by the American public as “acceptable losses” under the 2nd Amendment, I do not accept that my right to own a gun should allow for unspeakable carnage to occur

    And yet, you accept 30,000 traffic deaths a year for the PRIVILEGE of owning a car..

    Kinda non-sequitur there, Russ my boy...

    . I admit it....I do not know the best way to get guns out of the hands of people when would do harm to others with them! Happy now?

    "Ecstatic"
    -Jafar, ALADDIN

    But unlike your coward ass, I am not willing to do NOTHING and just sit back and watch people be killed so fucktards like yourself can overcompensate for the shortcomings God gave you!

    The hell you are not doing nothing.. Newsflash, sunshine.. Simply yelling and screaming hysterically "DO SOMETHING!!!".... That IS doing nothing..

    You want to be part of the solution?? Come up with a law that curbs the Crowd Based Mass Shooting that is compatible with the 2nd Amendment..

    If you actually care about lowering gun violence deaths in this country, why don’t you start by demanding Congress revoke the Dickey Act that prevents gun violence from being studied by the CDC?!?

    Why would I do that?? On what PLANET is it logical for a DISEASE/HEALTH organization to study gun violence??

    That's as moronic as asking the FBI to study the flu and the common cold...

    And frack your statistics on completely unrelated causes of death! I know you believe that they make a strong argument, but they are unrelated and therefore aren’t forth anyone’s time! You want to fight childhood obesity — good for you — but that’s a topic for a different day!

    And here I thought your goal was to prevent people from dying..

    I guess it's true what Beto said.. Ya'all Democrats are ONLY about confiscating guns... To hell with the people who are dying..

    Michale, I do not know if banning semi-automatic rifles that can easily be altered to act like automatic rifles will end mass shootings.

    Non-Sequitur..

    I do not have all the answers like you obviously do

    I don't have all the answers.. But I am SMART enough to look at the problem objectively without any Party agenda..

    I do know that doing nothing isn’t going to help the problem.

    And doing the WRONG thing will make the problem worse..

    So, instead of lashing out hysterically and full of emotionalism, maybe the CALM and OBJECTIVE approach should be tried..

    Don'tcha think???

    Your refusal to accept any small steps to lessen the likelihood of gun violence just leaves us with the drastic measures to insure it ends.

    MY refusal is irrelevant...

    You have to get past the 2nd Amendment..

    And you can't seem to do that..

    If one day they do come for your guns, just know you had plenty of chances to prevent that from ever happening, but you refused!

    The day they come for my guns it will be a sad day in America.. AND for those who come for my guns..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know that if these weapons were not available, 30 people could not be killed in under 2 minutes.

    Bullshit.. You want to limit mags to 10 rounds.. Anyone with a modicum of skill can train themselves to empty 3 10 rnd mags into people in under 2 mins..

    Then ban ALL rifles that can do it, regardless of Mag Capacity.. Right??

    What about handguns?? At the distance we are talking about in Crowd Based Mass Shootings (Vegas scumbag being the outlier) a reasonable competent shooter can take down 30 targets in under 2 mins with a handgun...

    Virginia Tech right a bell??

    33 people brutally murdered.. Scumbag shooter was armed with handguns.

    So, NOW you have to add handguns to your list of ban/confiscation targets..

    You see where this road leads???

    There is simply NO WAY that ANY KIND of ban will address the problem...

    You have gun laws up the wazzooo and Crowd Based Mass Shootings STILL happen..

    How many people have to die before Democrats realize that going after the tool will NOT give them the result they desire??

    It's not a coincidence that the ONLY law that is possible under the 2nd (Red Flag law) is a mental health law and not an anti-gun law..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was supposed to be the week when President Donald Trump unveiled his preferred plan for gun safety reform. He still might do so tomorrow.

    Oh, come on, CW.. You KNOW crap like this is always done on a FRI....

    Mitch McConnell has doubled down on this leaderlessness by insisting that he will not move on any bill until Trump expressly signals his support for it.

    How, EXACTLY, is that "leaderless"??

    Speaking as a leader at one time or another, I can assure you that THAT is the very definition of leadership..

    A subordinate waiting for direction from his commander..

    After the shootings in Gilroy, California, El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, it seemed there might be enough support to pass some sort of gun safety law.

    Except NO ONE can define what that law would look like.. Funny how that is, eh?

    . It's become such a regular occurrence that another one seems bound to happen before long. So the issue will never just fade completely away in the political world.

    Actually, the trend is downward of the last decade or two.. But why let FACTS ruin a perfectly good rant, eh? :D

    Democrats, of course, have already acted. The House has passed a number of bills, including a universal background check bill, which have been sitting in Mitch McConnell's inbox for months.

    There's a reason for that. It's ridiculous given the FACT that 99.5% of all gun purchases are bankground checked...

    There has NEVER been an instance where a non-checked gun was used in a Crowd Based Mass Shooting..

    Don't throw Odessa out there.. That was an illegal sale, period.. There is already a law on the books that would prevent Odessa.. No new law is needed or proven to be any more effectual than the existing law..

    The likeliest outcome of all this is that nothing gets done. I say this because that's how the issue has always played out over the past few decades. The power of the N.R.A. is greater than the fact that over ninety percent of the public is crying out for universal background checks. As Elizabeth Warren likes to point out, nothing shows the inherent corruption in our political system as an issue that nine-in-ten people want to see happen but one special interest group doesn't.

    Of course nothing will get done..

    If the sight of 20+ kindergartners being gunned didn't prompt action, NOTHING will..

    And, I am constrained to point out that Sandy Hook happened on OBAMA's watch and it was DEMOCRATS who defeated the gun ban that resulted..

    Can't blame THAT on Trump or the GOP..

    There's a whole spectrum of ideas on the Democratic side,

    And yet, not a SINGLE SOLITARY one of those have made it to Weigantia....

    Why is that??

    Beto O'Rourke got a lot of attention for his mandatory buyback of assaults weapons proposal last week, but there is no draft bill for such an idea, and there likely won't be any time soon, since most Democrats see this as going too far

    And what do you think???

    The simple fact is, nothing CAN be done...

    If anything actually COULD be done, it WOULD be done. As you say, the country is on the side of SOMETHING being done..

    But there is nothing..

    Democrats have 2 choices..

    1- Drop the platform of personal privacy and social stigma and give LEOs broader access to mental health records..

    2- Get rid of the 2nd and heavily modify the 4th...

    Those are your choices, Democrats..

    "Choose wisely"
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Matt Drudge predicts this 2020 Dem has the 'nomination to lose'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/matt-drudge-predicts-this-2020-dem-has-the-nomination-to-lose

    Drudge goes on the record.. :D How refreshing.. :D

  18. [18] 
    dsws wrote:

    I don't really care how a tiny number of hardcore gun nerds use the terms "AR-15" and "AK-47". I'll assume that you're right, and both terms are fully generic when used by firearms enthusiasts. There are an even tinier number of corporate spokespeople who insist that all trademarks are adjectives that can never be used generically at all.

    The meaning of a term in a language is determined by its actual use. Actual use seems to be inconsistent, but considerably more generic than I had guessed.

    The phrase "Colt AR-15" seems to be what's used when people want to be precise about referring to the specific trademarked make and model. "AR-15–style rifle" seems to be what they use when they want to be explicit that they're talking about such guns generically.

    It's not clear to me where the boundaries are. If someone describes a weapon as an "AR-15" because of similarity of appearance, but the gun uses pre-1959 technology to feed the bullets in, I'd be inclined to say that they're wrong, rather than saying that the terminology is just that inclusive.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't really care how a tiny number of hardcore gun nerds use the terms "AR-15" and "AK-47". I'll assume that you're right, and both terms are fully generic when used by firearms enthusiasts.

    Thank you..

    There are an even tinier number of corporate spokespeople who insist that all trademarks are adjectives that can never be used generically at all.

    Agreed.. But their motivations are economic and not political.. However, the end result is the same.

    "A difference that makes no difference IS no difference"
    -Spock

    he phrase "Colt AR-15" seems to be what's used when people want to be precise about referring to the specific trademarked make and model. "AR-15–style rifle" seems to be what they use when they want to be explicit that they're talking about such guns generically.

    Exactly.. And, if I am not mistaken, enacted laws have to be VERY specific..

    If Democrats want to BAN "Colt AR-15", they surely can advocate for that.. They might even win..

    I simply maintain it's a waste of time as Colt can simply retire the AR-15 and create the AR-16..

    It's not clear to me where the boundaries are. If someone describes a weapon as an "AR-15" because of similarity of appearance, but the gun uses pre-1959 technology to feed the bullets in, I'd be inclined to say that they're wrong, rather than saying that the terminology is just that inclusive.

    The problem for those who want to ban guns is two-fold...

    1- Their aversion to the AR-15 style rifle is SOLELY based on cosmetics.. It "looks scary"... I am sure you will agree that "looking scary" is not a firm foundation for a law.. No??

    2- The specs and nomenclatures involved in the AR-15 that make them such lethal weapons are pretty generic throughout the entire class of semi-automatic rifles.. AND quite a few semi-automatic handguns Ergo, ANY ban beyond the "looks scary" concept, any ban that actually takes specific specs and capabilities into account, will simply be too all encompassing and broad. So much so that it will NOT pass Constitutional muster..

    Until Democrats finally understand these two factually valid points, they will be forever just spinning their wheels and NOTHING will ever get done..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Credit where credit is due, Russ..

    Thanks for this one! It’ll make your posts claiming to be the only person who bases their posts on FACTS SOOOOO much more enjoyable to shut down!

    I was wrong on that one.. I mixed up ibuprofen with naproxen...

    Mea culpa.. You were right on this point. I was wrong..

    "Advil" is the commonly used term for ibuprofen.

    "Aleve" is the commonly used term for naproxen.

    So, yea.. You win on the nit pick, but you lose on the overall point..

    Democrats can't ban AR-15s as the term commonly applies to ALL semi-automatic rifles that share specs and nomenclature with the Colt AR-15..

    Democrats CAN try and ban "COLT AR-15" which might fly but, as I have pointed out, it would be an exercise in futility..

    When it comes to anti-gun laws, everything that COULD be done... HAS been done..

    The **ONLY** avenue that holds any hope of preventing or help preventing Crowd Based Mass Shootings is the mental health avenue...

    It's really that simple..

  21. [21] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Put some weight behind the gun issue, something so simple that the GOP can't blur, like a background check including private and gun show sales.

    Be pragmatic, add this simple question as a plebiscite...Winner takes all.

    Or continue to shrink from an issue simple bollocks can remedy at the ballot box.

    Trudeau.

    No one gives a shit about his brown face. I don't know anyone who hasn't been pissed at a party and worn a bra for earmuffs.

    Americans obsess over the most mundane minutiae imaginable. *say that three times fast.

    LL&P

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    JUSTIN, IS THAT YOU?
    TRUDEAU IN AFRO WIG
    BLACKFACE VIDEO
    CANADA JOLTED

    http://www.drudgereport.com

    Welp.. Stick a fork in Justin Trudeau..

    He be done..

    What IS it about Left Wingers and their DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO attitude??

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put some weight behind the gun issue, something so simple that the GOP can't blur, like a background check including private and gun show sales.

    Private and gun show sales make up .5% of all US gun purchases..

    It's a law designed to fix a "problem" that does not exist..

    But, hay... You be pragmatic and give me Nationwide CCW Reciprocity... Then you can have your .5% of background checks, excluding family members..

    Deal???

    Be pragmatic, add this simple question as a plebiscite...Winner takes all.

    What question??

    Or continue to shrink from an issue simple bollocks can remedy at the ballot box.

    I understand you being Canadian and all, you can't understand how much the 2nd Amendment was part and parcel to building this great country...

    No one gives a shit about his brown face. I don't know anyone who hasn't been pissed at a party and worn a bra for earmuffs.

    BBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    First of all, it wasn't a brown face it was Black Face..

    And if you are trying to say that no one cares about Black Face, I would have to ask you what you have been smoking...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americans obsess over the most mundane minutiae imaginable. *say that three times fast.

    As do Democrats..

    Remember, foffeve or something like that..

    I didn't hear you complain about "obsession of the most mundane minutiae imaginable" then, eh??

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://annoyedweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/ar-15-comparison-meme.jpg?w=816&h=9999

    This is the best example of the futility of the Democrats agenda..

    A is a perfectly acceptable "hunting rifle"..

    B is a heinous evil "assault rifle" and must be banned..

    Yet, these rifles are virtually identical in almost every way sans cosmetics..

    Once again..

    FACTS vs Hysterical Democrat Anti-Gun agenda..

  26. [26] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    "Trump, of course, sees the whole thing through the lens of how it will affect him politically."

    More in line with JTC (4), I disagree. Trump sees the whole thing through the lens of greed. I think it's always a mistake to mistakenly characterize anything Trump does as having anything of social interest or value, positive or negative. He's just looking for more ways to steal.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it's always a mistake to mistakenly characterize anything Trump does as having anything of social interest or value, positive or negative.

    Ahhhhh Bigotry and Hatred at it's finest.. :eyeroll:

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Paula

    Republicans will let children be mown down every day before they'll act. There's so many levels of disgraceful they illustrate every single day.

    Of course the FACTS are different..

    The FACT is, it was on Odumbo's watch that children were actually mowed down..

    And it was DEMOCRATS who prevented anti-gun legislation from passing Congress..

    Of course, why let FACTS ruin your perfect bullshit rant..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You listen to a justice like Antonin Scalia, not the most liberal justice who'd served on the Supreme Court, and even he found that there is no absolute guarantee under the Second Amendment and that the government does have a power to regulate those kinds of weapons that are are extraordinarily unusual or deadly"
    -Beto

    Yes, the government can regulate firearms under the 2nd Amendment.

    And the government HAS regulated firearms..

    But there comes a point where all the regulations that CAN be put into place HAVE been put into place..

    There are no more regs that are compatible with the 2nd...

    As far as "extraordinarily unusual or deadly"...

    What is "extraordinarily unusual" about semi-automatic firearms??

    Absolutely NOTHING...

    And if you are going to ban based on "deadly", then you must ban ALL firearms..

    Good luck with that.. :^/

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Your refusal to accept any small steps to lessen the likelihood of gun violence just leaves us with the drastic measures to insure it ends. If one day they do come for your guns, just know you had plenty of chances to prevent that from ever happening, but you refused!

    OK now this is new...

    "If We Don't Do This, It Will Be Done To Us."
    -Tony Stark

    This is a new approach.. You are claiming that we must agree to minor restrictions now to avoid MAJOR restrictions later..

    OK.. That's a logical position.

    But, here's the thing...

    In the entire history of Gun Control, minor concessions by Pro 2nd people have ***ALWAYS*** lead to more and more concessions down the road.

    Democrats won't be happy until they have their gun ban..

    This is documented FACT..

    Ergo, Pro 2nd Amendment people are drawing a line in the sand..

    "THIS FAR!!! NO FARTHER!!!"
    -Captain Jean Luc Picard

    Let Democrats compromise for once..

    Agree to Nationwide CCW Reciprocity in exchange for 100% background checks.

    Democrats willing??

    Of course not.. Because Democrats don't WANT to compromise.. They want everyone else to compromise..

    As for your claim that major restrictions later will be the end result if Pro 2nd people don't capitulate now??

    Bullshit..

    Within the next 2 years, the SCOTUS will be 6-3 Pro 2nd.... By the end of President Trump's term in office (Jan 2025) the SCOTUS will be 7-2 Pro 2nd..

    Your harsher restrictions down the road??

    AIN'T gonna happen..

    So, there is NO reason for Pro 2nd people to compromise now...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    But credit where credit is due, Russ.

    You DID come up with a new and different argument that has some logical merit..

    Kewpie doll for you.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Appearing on "Cuomo Prime Time," O'Rourke was asked point-blank if he was in favor of "gun confiscation."

    "Yes," O'Rourke firmly responded, "when it comes to AR-15s and AK-47s, weapons designed for use on a military battlefield, the high-impact, high-velocity round that is fired from those weapons. When it comes to those weapons... the answer is yes."

    The fact that Beto thinks the AR-15 was designed to be used by the military on a battlefield simply shows the complete and utter cluelessness of Beto when it comes to firearms....

    And THAT is the exact problem with Democrats anti-gun agenda..

    It's borne of ignorance, hysteria and emotionalism...

    And that is why Democrats will lose...

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The fact that Beto thinks the AR-15 was designed to be used by the military on a battlefield simply shows the complete and utter cluelessness of Beto when it comes to firearms....

    Waitaminute. I've been staying out of this, but you're saying that the AR-15 wasn't made for battlefield use?

    In what world?

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Waitaminute. I've been staying out of this,

    I have noticed.. Don't blame ya.. I imagine it hurts to be wrong all the time.. :D

    but you're saying that the AR-15 wasn't made for battlefield use?

    In what world?

    In this world...

    The AR-15 is a CIVILIAN version of the military M-16...

    AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons are civilian versions of military weapons. So what's the difference?
    https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    No actual military member (or expert in firearms) would go into battle with an AR-15....

    NONE of the components are military mission critical..

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The AR-15 is a CIVILIAN version of the military M-16...

    Right. Same gun, different purpose.

    It's even right there in the article:

    ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle....

    Hard to say that a military rifle isn't one just because of the number of bullets that comes out of it at one time. Seems you're splitting hairs long-ways.

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No actual military member (or expert in firearms) would go into battle with an AR-15....

    What are you talking about? Lots of kid went to war with M-16's in their hands. Maybe that was before your time...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Right. Same gun, different purpose.

    No.. NOT the same gun..

    Hard to say that a military rifle isn't one just because of the number of bullets that comes out of it at one time. Seems you're splitting hairs long-ways.

    Funny how you anti-gun nuts want to get specific when it suits your agenda and generic when THAT suits yer need.

    The AR-15 is NOT a military battlefield weapon. Anyone who thinks it is is showing off their ignorance of military and firearms..

    What are you talking about? Lots of kid went to war with M-16's in their hands.

    BUT NOT WITH THE AR-15...

    Are you being intentionally stupid?? Or is it now just your natural state??

    Maybe that was before your time...

    Hardly.. I have seen many a military battlefield with M-16s with the under-slung M203 and the GAU...

    Your expertise with guns??

    Oh yea.. What yer Dumbocrat masters tell you.. :eyeroll:

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    you anti-gun nuts want to get specific when it suits your agenda and generic when THAT suits yer need

    I didn't state my preference either way. But this isn't even close - it's the SAME GUN. Any changes beyond turning off the auto-feed?

    And yes, I was in the military in the 1970's. I know these guns very well.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't state my preference either way. But this isn't even close - it's the SAME GUN.

    No.. It is NOT the same gun..

    Especially when you consider all the variants of the AR-15 rifle..

    The AR-15 is NOT a military battlefield weapon.. Period..

    It's an URBAN battlefield weapon, but that is a whole nother discussion..

    And yes, I was in the military in the 1970's. I know these guns very well.

    Despite all indications to the contrary... :D

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's an URBAN battlefield weapon, but that is a whole nother discussion..

    Okay, let's have THAT discussion, if you'd prefer. Do you think that URBAN battlefield weapons have a place in our society? Should we let our kids play with them?

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think that URBAN battlefield weapons have a place in our society?

    Look at Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and the District..

    You tell me..

    Should we let our kids play with them?

    No one is advocating that..

    Now, if you are asking should we let responsible law-abiding adults have the tools that they need to insure their and their family's survival??

    Not only YEA but HELL YEA!!

    The 2nd Amendment is VERY clear..

    "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"

    You get rid of the 2nd and modify the 4th..

    Then you can have your semi-automatic rifle and gun ban...

    It won't happen before..

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    What are you talking about? Lots of kid went to war with M-16's in their hands.

    BUT NOT WITH THE AR-15...

    Are you being intentionally stupid?? Or is it now just your natural state??

    That was uncalled for. My apologies...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another Movie question..

    In what James Bond movie did Bond and friend intercept a passenger jet while it entered a small corner of US Airspace to apprehend the bad guy??

    I thought it was LICENCE TO KILL but I am not so sure now..

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Look at Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and the District..

    Or at San Francisco, Tampa, Miami, or Houston.

    All places where a Glock is just fine for self-defense. We don't NEED urban-military style rifles.

    Thank you. You've made my point for me.

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Should we let our kids play with them?
    No one is advocating that..

    Sure you are, unless you've had your head in the sand. You remind me of the mother of the shooter at Newtown, that thought that her son would NEVER use her AR-15.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    All places where a Glock is just fine for self-defense. We don't NEED urban-military style rifles.

    That's your OPINION... But you don't have the right to impose your OPINION on others. The 2nd Amendment says so..

    Just like I can't impose MY opinion on those who boycott companies and protest companies... The 1st Amendment says so...

    You see the point??

    Sure you are, unless you've had your head in the sand.

    No, I am not advocating to let "KIDS" (under 18) "play" with AR-15s..

    The fact that you think I am proves yer just pushing a hysterical and fear mongering agenda..

    Yer not going to get a gun ban.. THAT much is certain.

    If you REALLY care about saving lives then you'll come up with a solution that is Constitutionally acceptable and ACTUALLY has a chance of preventing or help preventing Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

    If all you care about is the Democrat Party agenda??

    "Party on, Garth.."</B.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    WARREN RISING
    HER NOMINATION TO LOSE?
    THE CROWDS, THE MOMENTUM

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/462072-warren-shows-signs-of-broadening-her-base

    What I tell ya!??

    Party Purity takes the nomination..

    Gods, it's tough being factually accurate all the time. :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Colt suspends production of AR-15 for civilian market
    https://apnews.com/fbdf5e5f6d654332bbedfaffe3663154

    Shrewd move by Colt..

    They get the hysterical anti-gun nut fanatics of their backs, they placate hysterical Dumbocrat lawmakers and can prep the market for their release of a new and improved AR-15 with a binary trigger standard..

    Great job, Dumbocrats..

    Ya'all just brought about the very events you were trying to stop.. :D

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Everything against guns that can be done under the second has been done.

    Boohoo-bullshit!

    The only recourse if you really want to address crowd based Mass shootings is to go with the mental health angle.

    So you are advocating for mental health exams to be required to be able to purchase a firearm? How very forward-thinking of you, but it won’t be an easy sell to your NRA-masters!

    A national gun registry is the best option to allow law enforcement to disarm individuals suffering from mental health issues that place them and others at greater risk. It also would allow first responders to be better aware if they are entering a location that is known to have firearms.

    A is a perfectly acceptable "hunting rifle"..

    B is a heinous evil "assault rifle" and must be banned..

    Yet, these rifles are virtually identical in almost every way sans cosmetics..

    I am SO THRILLED THAT YOU POSTED THIS!!!

    If the two guns are so similar, tell me why mass shooters never use A??? Why are rifles that look like B always used?

    You want to focus on the psychological aspects of what triggers a mass shooter to act, correct? Then you have to know that what the weapon looks like plays a large part of their fantasies. That desire to appear powerful and terrifying to others works a lot better with B than it does with A!

    If these two models are as identical (except in appearance) as you claim, then banning the one used by mass shooters would not bother true sportsmen because they’d still have A to hunt with.

    Why would I do that?? On what PLANET is it logical for a DISEASE/HEALTH organization to study gun violence??

    That's as moronic as asking the FBI to study the flu and the common cold...

    You are the one trying to (falsely) compare deaths from auto-accidents with deaths from gun violence, and then you state this?!?! Gun violence causes death. It is a healthcare issue! Who would you turn to to study gun violence? Oh, I know...the NRA, right?!?!

    The CDC and NIH studied auto-accident deaths which resulted in vehicles being made with seatbelts, airbags, and safer speed limits in populated areas. Let me ask you this...why did the gun lobby push so hard for the Dickey Bill to be passed?

    Why are gun makers the only manufacturers whose products are not regulated by the CPSB and can only be recalled for safety defects if their manufacturer chooses to recall them?

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    Liz Warren spotted at O'Hare airport - selfie line spontaneously occurs. Not a huge line or anything, but still...

    https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1174740927283453952

  52. [52] 
    Paula wrote:

    Separately:

    Gunmaker Colt says it is suspending its production of rifles for the civilian market including the popular AR-15.

    Colt’s chief executive officer, Dennis Veilleux, says it is not permanently ending production but believes there is already an adequate supply of sporting rifles on the market. He said in a statement Thursday the company will concentrate on fulfilling military and law enforcement contracts with its rifle manufacturing.

    https://apnews.com/fbdf5e5f6d654332bbedfaffe3663154

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Boohoo-bullshit!

    Fine.. Prove me wrong..

    Since NO ONE here has been able to prove me wrong for over a year..

    The FACT stands..

    So you are advocating for mental health exams to be required to be able to purchase a firearm?

    As much as I am advocating mental health exams to exercise free speech..

    What part of CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is unclear to you??

    If the two guns are so similar, tell me why mass shooters never use A??? Why are rifles that look like B always used?

    Because they are bat shit crazy..

    DUH...

    So, you are claiming if you take away the "scary looking" rifle, scumbag psychotic mass shooters simply will not kill??

    BBWBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    DO you HONESTLY believe that utter bullshit???

    Seriously, Russ.. You are WAY out of your league..

    I'll be around when you come up with a law that will prevent or help prevent Crowd Based Mass Shootings and is compatible with the 2nd Amendment..

    But you and I both know that no such law exists..

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Paula

    Gunmaker Colt says it is suspending its production of rifles for the civilian market including the popular AR-15.

    Colt’s chief executive officer, Dennis Veilleux, says it is not permanently ending production but believes there is already an adequate supply of sporting rifles on the market. He said in a statement Thursday the company will concentrate on fulfilling military and law enforcement contracts with its rifle manufacturing.

    Old news, sweethart...

    I have already posted that.. Keep up or go home.. :D

    As I said.. It's a shrewd move by Colt..

    And a great move for gun owners wanting to get the latest tech.. :D

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Now, if you are asking should we let responsible law-abiding adults have the tools that they need to insure their and their family's survival??

    So having a gun ensures your’s and your family’s survival? As an EMT, I saw firsthand how wrong you are about that too many times. I got to be the one who had to tear the child out of their wailing parents arms so we could see if there was any hope that they were still alive. The answer was always, “NO!” I got to hear the screams of the children begging us not to let their daddy die as we worked as fast as we could to stabilize and transport them with their self-inflicted gunshot wound. In fact, I never once responded to a call for someone with a gunshot wound at a home that did not own a gun! But how can that be???

    So, forgive me for not being willing to live in your fantasy world when I tell you to take that claim that your gun ensures your family’s safety and shove it as far and as deep down your flapping pie hole as is humanly possible!!!

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    So having a gun ensures your’s and your family’s survival? As an EMT, I saw firsthand how wrong you are about that too many times.

    And, as a police officer I saw firsthand how right I am tons more time than you..

    So, forgive me for not being willing to live in your fantasy world

    Yea.. You would rather live in YOUR fantasy world where you can simply ban what you don't like.

    Sorry, Russ.. The FACTS and REALITY is there will never be a gun ban.. You Democrats will NEVER have a nationwide gun confiscation..

    And yer simply pissing into the wind when you try to make it happen..

    All your Democrats are doing is convincing Independents and NPAs that Democrats are simply too dangerous to be let near the levers of government power...

  57. [57] 
    dsws wrote:

    Our system of constitutional change is utterly broken. In the document itself, the original authors claimed to give all the powers to Congress. In practice today, the great bulk of the powers are in the executive branch. We didn't get there by amending the Constitution. For the most part, we didn't even get there by interpreting the Constitution. We got there by ignoring it.

    Today, what it takes to change a piece of constitutional law is simply a majority on the Supreme Court. Various restrictions on firearms have been imposed throughout US history. There's plenty we could do, if we really decided to.

    I distinguish between actual rights and legal rights. An actual right exists when it's wrong to stop someone from doing something. For example, if we say that I have a right to freedom of speech within reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, that means it's wrong to stop me from saying whatever I choose to say (but not to reasonably restrict how, where, and when I say it). A legal right exists when the law forbids some category of entities from stopping someone from doing something. In addition to my actual right to freedom of speech, I have a legal right to freedom of speech -- but only against the government. If some private individual violates my right to say whatever I want, the law doesn't have a problem with that.

    I don't believe in any actual right to unjustified, unauthorized, coercive threat. Cops are authorized to use coercive threat within certain limits. There are circumstances where some use of coercive threat is within one's rights in self defense, or in defense of someone else. In general, though, a vague broadcast of "don't tick me off or I'll shoot someone" is way too coercive to be the kind of thing I recognize any right to.

    We could restrict firing rate of semiautomatic weapons. We could restrict magazine capacity. We could restrict the quantity and type of ammunition a person can own, or can carry. We could restrict weapons based on the velocity, kinetic energy, and/or mass of the bullets they're capable of firing. We could require liability insurance. We could change the rules about liability. We could require licenses. We could tax the purchase of firearms. We could tax the ownership of firearms. We could have the government buy firearms from people who choose to sell them instead of paying the tax.

    And so on. Gun enthusiasts will insist that any proposed measure is unconstitutional and won't do any good. But there are lots of options.

    On the other hand, with all the other things wrong with the world, gun control isn't much of a priority for me.

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Fine.. Prove me wrong..

    Since NO ONE here has been able to prove me wrong for over a year..

    The FACT stands..

    We prove you wrong all the time. Heck, you prove yourself wrong on a daily basis! Expanded background checks to cover all sells has not been tried. McConnell won’t allow it to be voted on. So, Everything against guns that can be done under the second has been done. is a lie!

    Agree to Nationwide CCW Reciprocity in exchange for 100% background checks.

    As long as you agree that gun makers can no longer produce or sale assault rifles, we allow you to keep the ones you have now! If gunmakers stop making new guns, then the laws on the books would be OK. New guns create new issues and would not necessarily be subject to the old laws.

  59. [59] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And, as a police officer I saw firsthand how right I am tons more time than you..

    BIG DIFFERENCE- I was actually an EMT...you have never been a police officer! You were an MP on a military base. So you are lying to yourself and everyone here! And if you were ever an actual police officer, you’d quickly call out your own bullshit for saying guns ensure your safety! I am married to a police officer with over 18 years experience, and he just laughs when I read him your comments. Devon wants to know why he has to wear a Kevlar vest if his gun ensures his safety?

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike

    Exactly...

    Wrong. Kleenex is a trademarked name unless and until it loses its trademark; it runs that risk because people have turned it into a genericized trademark. Y'all can keep claiming there is an English word "kleenex," and you'll be wrong, wrong, wrong every time. If you don't believe me, look it up in multiple dictionaries. The law of the United States determines what is and what is not a generic term and no one else, including the posters on this forum.

    Here is a list of trademarked named that have lost their trademark and are now generic:

    * aspirin
    * cellophane
    * dry ice
    * escalator
    * heroin
    * kerosene
    * laundromat
    * linoleum
    * thermos

    Please note that Kleenex and AR-15 and AK-47 aren't on the list.

    Those who know firearms and have carried them since they were 17...

    Seventeen! Those of us who've been shooting since we were three laugh gleefully at your obvious ignorance.

    AR-15 is a trademarked name no matter how many times the goobers and morons claim it isn't:

    https://trademarks.justia.com/722/53/ar-72253092.html

    Pictures don't lie..

    You lie often, but I think that's because you're simply ignorant of FACTS and insist you're correct when you're not... a common trait of uninformed people who believe their own repeated BS.

    continued...

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    ... continued

    Jurisdictions have no problem defining firearms, Mike.

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/state-laws-and-published-ordinances-firearms-33rd-edition

    California along with multiple and various assorted jurisdictions have a plethora of statutes that are loaded -- no pun intended -- with legal definitions regarding types of banned firearms. The statutes can and do change when manufacturers change their specs; they're called amendments.

    Crack a book! :)

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    32

    The fact that Beto thinks the AR-15 was designed to be used by the military on a battlefield simply shows the complete and utter cluelessness of Beto when it comes to firearms....

    Wrong. Mike, I see your problems:

    * You're repeatedly ignorant of facts and history; indeed, you've admitted already you're not a "history buff" (your term).

    * You believe your own ignorant uninformed spew and keep repeating it as if you know what you're talking about.

    AR-15 style battlefield weapons and their variants M16 and M4 were designed to kill humans in rapid succession. AR-15s were still being used by the US military well into the 1990s, Air Force to be exact. Anyone who claims the AR-15 isn't a weapon designed for the battlefield is simply ignorant of history or not a "history buff."

    Colt bought the ArmaLite rifle (AR) brand (still trademarked to this day) because of ArmaLite's inability to meet the production needs required by the US government, who then promptly contracted Colt to make the rifle for the US Army, and at the time, Colt made two versions: an automatic version for the Army and a version that was semi-automatic... both came off the exact same assembly lines and were branded "AR-15" on the lower receivers, with the Army version branded "Colt ArmaLite AR-15, Property of the U.S. Government caliber .223" to be exact, purchased for Special Forces, Airborne, Air Assault, and Ranger units during the Vietnam era. The main other difference between the two versions of AR-15 was the bolt and whether a 2-position or 3-position selector switch. After the AR-15 went into circulation, more was learned about how to improve the rifle, then branded the M16, various versions.

    History will set your ignorance free. :)

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    35

    No actual military member (or expert in firearms) would go into battle with an AR-15....

    NONE of the components are military mission critical..

    They did in Vietnam, and you're simply ignorant of history. Nothing new. :)

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    55

    In fact, I never once responded to a call for someone with a gunshot wound at a home that did not own a gun! But how can that be???

    Because "everyone" is a "responsible gun owner" until they're not. Ask that nice young woman who got shot with her own gun at a Walmart in Podunk, Idaho by her 2-year-old son, she'll tell you... oh, wait!

    So, forgive me for not being willing to live in your fantasy world when I tell you to take that claim that your gun ensures your family’s safety and shove it as far and as deep down your flapping pie hole as is humanly possible!!!

    I like the pie idea! :)

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    59

    I am married to a police officer with over 18 years experience, and he just laughs when I read him your comments.

    Sounds just like my SO and my "crew" who howl regularly at his repetitive and inveterate ignorance. They call him "the Pup" -- short for Mud Puppy.

    Devon wants to know why he has to wear a Kevlar vest if his gun ensures his safety?

    I know, right!?

    You tell Devon that the "teflon" has to be "left on" because of all the wannabe dipshits like Mike. :)

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I've just collapsed it into about a dozen comments now that I've invoked "HIDDEN" and relegated it to its proper place of invisibility. Be gone! And so it is."
    -Victoria, DLC

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    67

    I've just collapsed it into about a dozen comments now that I've invoked "HIDDEN" and relegated it to its proper place of invisibility. Be gone! And so it is."
    -Victoria, DLC

    Thanks go out to the Trump Cock Holster for his above admission that he has nothing to refute the posted facts/history. His demonstrable and inveterate ignorance of history is alive and well and on display for the entire forum.

    TamperMonkey (trademarked name) can indeed be turned on and off at will by any poster. We the Posters are definitely and without any question the ones who decide when we're going to read the board bullshit and respond to it and when we're not. It's not at all a difficult concept to grasp, but if Mike is such a fucking poon that he has to keep reminding himself of that FACT until is permeates his admitted single brain cell, I say he should post it until it leaches into that lonely little tiny single cell in his head that resides permanently lodged firmly up his own lard arse.

    Mike's posting of that quote over and over ad nauseam and nothing to counter has the added benefit of alerting everyone here in Weigantia that he's got little to offer and absolutely NOTHING to refute the posted FACTS which prove him to be not only an obvious poon but also a totally blinkered smeg. :)

Comments for this article are closed.