The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[UpaLoompa]

It appeals squarely to her core demographic (women 30+) and allows her to differentiate herself from Bernie.

It does differentiate her but, even at the primary level, I don't see it getting her votes that Sanders would otherwise be getting.

its one of the issues that is felt strongly by a certain subset of democrats

Yeah I'm certainly aware of that. My point more is that I don't see it capturing or "energizing" voters that wouldn't otherwise already be locked in and highly engaged. The coalition you described is voting democratic, period, for a variety of reasons and "assault rifle" bans aren't swaying that.

It isn't something I've looked into in any detail vis-a-vis polling data and fundraising but it has always seemed like a losing issue to me.

 

[jlagman]

Yeah, I would love to see Hillary or Andy Cuomo explain why pistol grips on semiautomatic rifles should be banned.

Dems support some really stupid gun laws, but these laws aren't serious concerns for me when casting a vote.

because they're designed for COMBAT, duh.

 

[Islam Imamate]

This seems like it belongs here.

Amy Schumer never misses an opportunity to use her comedy — or her platform — for good.

Schumer tackles the gun market’s lack of rules and regulations on the latest episode of “Inside Amy Schumer.” In a new sketch, called “Welcome To The Gun Show,” the comedian explains via an “HSN”-like show just how horrifyingly easy it is for anyone to obtain a gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...itics&section=us_politics&utm_hp_ref=politics


Never cared for Amy Schumer and this didn't change my mind.

 

[jlagman]

This seems like it belongs here.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...itics&section=us_politics&utm_hp_ref=politics


Never cared for Amy Schumer and this didn't change my mind.

I may have posted this here before, I can't remember, but it warrants repetition.



Anyone know if the "Schumer" surname is just a coincidence?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

because they're designed for COMBAT, duh.

How is an AR15 too dangerous to be legal but a Mini 14 not? They shoot the same bullets, they're barrels are in the same length range, and they both use detachable magazines.

 

[My Spot]

How is an AR15 too dangerous to be legal but a Mini 14 not? They shoot the same bullets, they're barrels are in the same length range, and they both use detachable magazines.

I think he's being sarcastic. At least I hope he is...

 

[jlagman]

How is an AR15 too dangerous to be legal but a Mini 14 not? They shoot the same bullets, they're barrels are in the same length range, and they both use detachable magazines.

Your sarcasm detector is broken. I was mocking some other 'tard, from another thread who actually was dumb enough to try to make that argument.

 

[Greoric]

How is an AR15 too dangerous to be legal but a Mini 14 not? They shoot the same bullets, they're barrels are in the same length range, and they both use detachable magazines.

Precisely, but I think he was being facetious.

 

[Greoric]

Well damn. Let's all just jump Sabre at the same time.

 

[jlagman]

How is an AR15 too dangerous to be legal but a Mini 14 not? They shoot the same bullets, they're barrels are in the same length range, and they both use detachable magazines.

LOL, found it:

Here's a difference in the grip alone;

versus

Now do those grips look even remotely the same? One looks very comfy for quick aim and burst fire/reset, the other looks more awkward and requires a bit more "set up time" before you take aim and fire.

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DESIGNED THAT WAY.

 

[BVG]

LOL, found it:

Why are you quoting me?

 

[BVG]

Your sarcasm detector is broken. I was mocking some other 'tard, from another thread who actually was dumb enough to try to make that argument.

never mind I see your angle.

My argument is sound. Of the two rifles, which one does the US ARMY equip their soldiers with? Then ask yourself why they do that. Your argument is still closed minded and ignorant. And I giggle that you still laugh about it and post it like it's a joke, trying to get reassurance from your fellow idiots.

"but but they use the same bullets, same cartridges and same shells...wtf?"

one is designed for combat. for running and firing and quick aim. One is longer, more clumsy can snag on shit and takes slightly longer to draw and aim.

The only problem is I'm in a thread with a collection of idiots who think the design and shape of something doesn't matter. It's like the difference between two cars with the same horsepower, the same transmission...one is designed for better cornering and is lighter for a faster straightaway...the other is fucking toaster shaped.

That's a product of the design. Design...it's a thing fella... go look it up.

 

[jlagman]

never mind I see your angle.

My argument is sound. Of the two rifles, which one does the US ARMY equip their soldiers with? Then ask yourself why they do that. Your argument is still closed minded and ignorant. And I giggle that you still laugh about it and post it like it's a joke, trying to get reassurance from your fellow idiots.

"but but they use the same bullets, same cartridges and same shells...wtf?"

one is designed for combat. for running and firing and quick aim. One is longer, more clumsy can snag on shit and takes slightly longer to draw and aim.

The only problem is I'm in a thread with a collection of idiots who think the design and shape of something doesn't matter. It's like the difference between two cars with the same horsepower, the same transmission...one is designed for better cornering and is lighter for a faster straightaway...the other is fucking toaster shaped.

That's a product of the design. Design...it's a thing fella... go look it up.

Obviously, the pistol grip is the cornerstone of a COMBAT design.

LO-fucking-L.

Anti's are so easy, they argue shit they know absolutely nothing about.

 

[Greoric]

never mind I see your angle.

My argument is sound. Of the two rifles, which one does the US ARMY equip their soldiers with? Then ask yourself why they do that. Your argument is still closed minded and ignorant. And I giggle that you still laugh about it and post it like it's a joke, trying to get reassurance from your fellow idiots.

"but but they use the same bullets, same cartridges and same shells...wtf?"

one is designed for combat. for running and firing and quick aim. One is longer, more clumsy can snag on shit and takes slightly longer to draw and aim.

The only problem is I'm in a thread with a collection of idiots who think the design and shape of something doesn't matter. It's like the difference between two cars with the same horsepower, the same transmission...one is designed for better cornering and is lighter for a faster straightaway...the other is fucking toaster shaped.

That's a product of the design. Design...it's a thing fella... go look it up.

So why should having a more effective weapon be outlawed for self defense?

 

[BVG]

So why should having a more effective weapon be outlawed for self defense?

well at least someone finally admits that the design of a gun can make it more effective...

 

[Greoric]

Obviously, the pistol grip is the cornerstone of a COMBAT design.

LO-fucking-L.

Anti's are so easy, they argue shit they know absolutely nothing about.

Here's the thing. He's right that it makes a difference in efficacy of the weapon in terms of better TA time with a pistol grip versus not. What I want to read him argue is why that's a reason they should be outlawed. Should a knife used for self defense only be so sharp, because after a certain sharpness its to effective at cutting someone?

 

[Greoric]

well at least someone finally admits that the design of a gun can make it more effective...

Well sure it is. Why is that an argument for banning it though? Should knives only be so sharp if they're to be used for self defense?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

well at least someone finally admits that the design of a gun can make it more effective...

I've always wondered why skeet/trap shooters don't use combat-style shotguns for the requisite speed and accuracy of those endeavors.

 

[Greoric]

I've always wondered why skeet/trap shooters don't use combat-style shotguns for the requisite speed and accuracy of those endeavors.

That might be the rules of the competition though...

 

[jlagman]

Here's the thing. He's right that it makes a difference in efficacy of the weapon in terms of better TA time with a pistol grip versus not. What I want to read him argue is why that's a reason they should be outlawed. Should a knife used for self defense only be so sharp, because after a certain sharpness its to effective at cutting someone?

As I mentioned in that previous shit show of a thread, it's efficacy is dictated by how it's implemented into the design and not the object in-and-of-itself. A pistol grip is retarded on a bolt action rifle with a tang safety as it requires you to relinquish your firing grip to operate. The same could be said for a field stock on an AR, with the safety/selector on the left side of the receiver.

Basically an accessory, as preferential and insignificant as a grip, is moot. Trying to dictate how one is somehow "deadlier" than another, especially in the wrong application, is downright moronic.

This is just another attempt at throwing shit on the wall and seeing what sticks. On one hand, you have politicians trying to appease the crowd by saying they respect 2nd Amendment right and that they're not out to take people's guns. Then attempt to do just that by targeting one of the most popular firearms and grasping at straws by misinforming people about the lethality of fucking accessories.