Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Yamato

Women Need AR-15 (Scary Looking Guns)

102 posts in this topic

lmao, anyone's safety take precedence, over your right to FEEL safe, even if such right existed, but it doesn't, lol.

a privilege to drive infringes on your life, and should scare you a lot more than any gun, look at statistics , you are a lot more likely to be killed by a car, that by any gun, this is a fact. you can't deny it.

lol, I personally do have traning and intensive background check done, more intensive than you can ever imagine.

but don't mind me , you still have no point here

no amount of traing or most intensive background checks, will prevent accidents, that is a fact too, there are plenty of them in police, and especially in the army, you have no idea how many accidents trained professionals have. nothing you can do about it, that is also a fact, unless you are taking every gun away from everyone, but you are not suggesting that, are you?

also ppl with clean records and enough training, sometimes flip and go postal there would be no reason for you to take their guns away even by your proposed laws.

and you have absolutely no idea, who will snap and who wont, who is to say you personally wont flip and go postal in 3 months???? no one. (even if you don't have a gun, you have a car and can drive, raod rage, and vehicular homicide are not that uncommon,)

again you have to take every single gun away to be remotely confident (don't forget, illegal guns will always be there, and gangs will always have them, that is a fact too), but neither you realistically can do it, nor you campaign for that, or are you???

Gun control or better regulation does not mean a gun ban. It`s funny that most Americans don`t get that as I can read and I`m on the same continent

Just to add

Stop breading gangsters

Edited by The Silver Thong
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me how many ar-15 stoped home envasions if you think they are so needed or how many rapes were prevented due to an ar-15.

A statistic neither one of us have doesn't grant you the favor. Crimes are prevented every day; those are the ones you never hear about.

An AR-15 is an invaluable self and home-defense tool, particularly for women and people of smaller stature, as outlined in reply #60. Please watch the video. What is your problem with having so much issue with 0.x% of gun crimes? Do you think that your opinion in some new gun law to tag onto the end of all the other gun laws that only address weapons like AR-15 is going to do diddly squat to prevent gun crime? You're ignoring gun crime just to make political cheese points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I think gay people should have the same rights I do. The EXACT same rights I do.

So what's with the post putting civil unions in the same sentence as the Jim Crow laws? You think that having the legal ability for them to marry will harm society?

you don't you can't, lol, but keep talking it is entertaining,

Then why are my comments an issue? Why am I being accused of taking away your "rights"?

awesome, that you're satisfied with your laws, however we are not talking about your laws, lol but I guess it is better than allowing people to buy or sell firearms like guitars, where ppl have this mentality, (see the quote below) let it not change, lol would not trust much paranoid individuals, with pov like that; (again, see the quote below) to have guns, you'd shoot when you'd see someone putting hand in the inside pocket, thinking he is going for the gun, while he went for his valet,

Can you write in English please? I don't understand hick.

we go to shooting ranges spend thousands of rounds to shoot paper, no one gets hurt, I know, it is hard to compreheand by some one with mentality like that; (see the quote below)

What mentality?

see, again you measuring the world by your personal standards, that is exactly my point.

These standards are those of the civilised world, are they not?

neither I care, nor I asked what you personally drive, or how many shoes you personally have, you should work on better telling apart rhetorical questions from literal.

And I do not give a rat's **** whether you drive a massive pickup truck. I do wonder though, why you have the need to own two assault rifles.

What could possibly harm you that a pistol wouldn't cover just as effectively? The police?

btw, your, and our, gvmnt should ban small cars, I don't care how many stars its crash rating is, they are death traps,i've seen enough crashes to know it, I was involved in lethal crash myself, I was passenger in Lincoln mark 7 and we t-boned, Toyota corolla, she ran a light, guess which car had fatalities.

Smallness doesn't affect safety ratings. If you knew what Euro NCAP ratings were, you'd agree. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better nor safer.

stay safe bro.

We don't have many American cars here. I am safe.

Edited by MichaelW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's with the post putting civil unions in the same sentence as the Jim Crow laws? You think that having the legal ability for them to marry will harm society?

Stupid laws from government that go together. Obviously.

What part of "I think they deserve the exact same rights as me" do you not understand? How can you possibly construe that "I think the legal ability for them to marry will harm society"? It's none of the government's business who marries who. Understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid laws from government that go together. Obviously.

What part of "I think they deserve the exact same rights as me" do you not understand? How can you possibly construe that "I think the legal ability for them to marry will harm society"? It's none of the government's business who marries who. Understand?

So, if you're saying that you support equal rights, why are you saying that any proposal to legalise civil unions at a federal level is stupid? You support marriage equality, therefore any laws granting that equality aren't stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if you're saying that you support equal rights, why are you saying that any proposal to legalise civil unions at a federal level is stupid? You support marriage equality, therefore any laws granting that equality aren't stupid.

Obviously because "civil unions" aren't marriage equality. It's another lower-tier treatment for what government decrees are lower-tier people, this time not for their skin color but for their sexual preference. Why are you even trying to defend that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control or better regulation does not mean a gun ban. It`s funny that most Americans don`t get that as I can read and I`m on the same continent

Just to add

Stop breading gangsters

it is funny most none americans, don't see facts hat gun control doesn't reduce crimes, oh well.

tell current gangster so stop breeding,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you write in English please? I don't understand hick.

sure you do, you just can't dispute it, so you play dumb

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to identify your target(s) to the extent that you don't just start firing, and wind up shooting someone you know or didn't mean to shoot. And if they start returning fire with their guns then it'll be scary enough for you and your suddenly woefully inadequate firepower. The point is, you're not going to be outgunned in a 5-on-1 situation with AR-15. If you have 30 round magazines and hundreds of rounds of ammo ("What in the world would someone need that for?", the gun-fear liberals ask) you can protect yourself in any scenario against even PCP or bath-salt goons with suppressing fire alone until the cops arrive. If that doesn't provide peace of mind for you, then be relieved that Barack Obama and his bureaucrat horde is going to bestow how many bullets thou may safely place in thy magazine. Because you're a threat to society when it crosses the magic line drawn by the bureau, and it could be a felony that puts you in a cage. Sorry, but the fear factor is extremely relevant on both ends of the trigger. A single girl and a pistol? We've been through worse, some criminals will think. They can handle you, easier than you think.

well said , but it is not a self defence thing with the goverment... when a goverment is afraid of its citizens... you have a chance for freedom ... in 90% of the countrys in the world... the citizen is afrad of its goverment... with good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control or better regulation does not mean a gun ban. It`s funny that most Americans don`t get that as I can read and I`m on the same continent

Just to add

Stop breading gangsters

but infact it does mean a ban ... seat belts will never ever ever be a reason to pull a person over and write them a ticket ... i heard that for 30 years ... never ever in one million years... well a million years just happened ...

NEVER GIVE AN INCH! those who will dis-arm you never return what they take ...

and they have a pattern of lies which says they will lie for what ever reason is good today...

they are not reasonable... but they want you to beleive they are...

may i point out the short barrel shot gun called " honor guns "

it looks like a police batton with a arm grip .

it is totaly defensive , imposable to carry with out conceiling it , and the single best weapon on earth to protect a women against any attacker ... be it a dog or a man ...

and totaly illegal in the first world . you have to go to the third world to buy one , and you can not import one , you need a class three fire arms tax just to have a 15 inch 12 gauge shot gun , and then have a conceiled wepons permit .

in california it would be illegal to own one in no less than four diffrent ways ...

what a honor gun does , is make a women safe in a bad place or a bad time of day .

from the 5 inch bike grip , the barrel extends about 8 inches .... at just before the elbow

a sheet metal grip hold the arm to the tube so that even when the grip is not held , the barrel will stay in the sleeve.

there is often a velcro strap that lets the warer attach it to the leg , under a skirt...

the point is... it is not designed for warfare ... its designed by and for women in third world countrys TO BE CONCEILED ... it is with out any use to police , and has no military use ....

it is for protection only and will save lives...

and that is why it is illegal in every first world country on the planet ....

do not even hint that reasonable people want gun control... it is a lie... they are power hungry control freaks... and wish to dis arm those who will fight back against police randon searchs... and shooting unarmed black women because they look like a police officer that is crazy...

please tell me what is the up side of letting police be the only people with guns? i need to hear it clearly...

i want a single set of ... this is what will be the out come ... and ... i want a statement....

WE WILL end all conceiled gun restrictions if these thing DO NOT HAPPENED AS WE PROMISE THEY WILL .

and... we will let the public have short barreled shot guns with out restrictions ...if what we promise does not happen.

put up or shut the hell up ! back off and back up ... OR PUT UP !

you say people will stop dieing in our street... gun violance will go down ... put up or shut up... i want short barreled shot guns taken off the class three list...

if crime goes up... you give it up... you tell me in advance what will happen... get in front of your data...

tell me how meny and on what date... and what i get if your wrong....

or step away from the car ... and get away from my weapons .

Edited by onereaderone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... may i add....

they will lie ... it is important to understand that they will lie... so you can not ever let your trust enter the picture...

you can not trust them to pass a law after the fact... what ever you agree to must be in the same law that is passed.

give them the assault weapons ban... with the agreement... it makes assault weapons legal ...and makes conceiled weapons legal

in every state with out permit or other restrictions by place or time , and short barreled shot guns legal with out class three tax ... if... we do not see a reduction in cases of mass shootings...

making it clear the reduction is not the current numbers... it is a total number divided by population per year ....

lets be reasonable here... if they know we will be safer... then this should be easy to agree to...

we do not have to be fair, or except a reasonable alternitive... they give up nothing

they take from my hand a thing i hold... and have only an empty hand to offer me...

value for value... if this is a bet... what do they put on the table for me to win... and if we are betting on an out come... lets here what the bet is ... before we start giving over something of value with nothing being asked for in return....

they already shoot black women in the street because of officer safty ... this is where we stand today...

gang members shoot girls in parks... fearless of any one shooting back ... this is what a dis armed culture looks like ...

we have given to them what reason asked... let us ask as reasonable people... why should we agree to more , when what they have done has not worked ... lets try another answer.. and not their answer ...

Edited by onereaderone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously because "civil unions" aren't marriage equality. It's another lower-tier treatment for what government decrees are lower-tier people, this time not for their skin color but for their sexual preference. Why are you even trying to defend that?

Civil unions are all they can hope for at the federal level. You can't press for marriage because religious wackos will b**** and whinge about how marriage is a religious institution.

yours,

What about it?

sure you do, you just can't dispute it, so you play dumb

I can dispute it. I just need to know what it is you're trying to say. As I said, speak English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a privilege to drive infringes on your life, and should scare you a lot more than any gun, look at statistics , you are a lot more likely to be killed by a car, that by any gun, this is a fact. you can't deny it.

but laws that control motor vehicles have greatly reduced deaths. It's a fact, you can't deny it.

no amount of traing or most intensive background checks, will prevent accidents,

yes and?

again you have to take every single gun away to be remotely confident

no you would not, you merely need some good legislation and the number of deaths will reduce faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

worrying over AR-15 background checks.

I'm pretty certain background checks would be universal not based on a particular type of arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain background checks would be universal not based on a particular type of arm.

They've worked so well for handguns, a particular type of arm, since handguns dominate the totality of gun crime in this country. It's hard to see how asking for more failure is going to achieve success. It's just applying politically correct window dressings to keep uneducated/ambivalent/fearful voters encouraged and appeased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've worked so well for handguns, a particular type of arm, since handguns dominate the totality of gun crime in this country. It's hard to see how asking for more failure is going to achieve success. It's just applying politically correct window dressings to keep uneducated/ambivalent/fearful voters encouraged and appeased.

we don't have universal background checks for handguns so I'm not sure what you're comparing to. Maybe you don't understand. Universal background checks could apply to ALL gun transactions in any form whatsoever in all states. They do not currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we don't have universal background checks for handguns so I'm not sure what you're comparing to. Maybe you don't understand. Universal background checks could apply to ALL gun transactions in any form whatsoever in all states. They do not currently.

To "certain background checks based on a particular type of arm" (to what I replied to). DC bombing five countries in the Middle East, the biggest proliferator of arms on the planet, starting multiple wars of aggression on a pack of lies, taking the lives of millions of innocent people, and you want to surrender our rights to that gang of murderous hypocritical nuts? How can you not see how wrongheaded that is? Again, go to your local government and start there. If your ideas are so intelligent and effective you can demonstrate how wonderful it is on a local level and then expand that greatness from there. Where does this blind faith in bureaucrats famous for mass-BS come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC bombing five countries in the Middle East, the biggest proliferator of arms on the planet, starting multiple wars of aggression on a pack of lies, taking the lives of millions of innocent people, and you want to surrender our rights to that gang of murderous hypocritical nuts?

no one is "surrendering" any rights and wars in five countries outside of the US really has nothing to do with gun control in the US.

Again, go to your local government and start there. If your ideas are so intelligent and effective you can demonstrate how wonderful it is on a local level and then expand that greatness from there. Where does this blind faith in bureaucrats famous for mass-BS come from?

Government that provides you with benefits on a daily basis without which we would not be talking, you might not be living, and you depend upon for your current existence. Further, it is not "blind faith", that should be reserved for religion. The governed must participate in government by voting, speaking and being informed. I am relatively happy with my local government. The alternative to government is anarchy - something that you dance around but won't come out of the closet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To "certain background checks based on a particular type of arm" (to what I replied to). DC bombing five countries in the Middle East, the biggest proliferator of arms on the planet, starting multiple wars of aggression on a pack of lies, taking the lives of millions of innocent people, and you want to surrender our rights to that gang of murderous hypocritical nuts?

It'd certainly be much safer than keeping them in the hands of people such as yourself. After all, when you claim five countries are being bombed as we speak and a gazillion people are dead, it's not difficult to imagine you like that black guy in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd certainly be much safer than keeping them in the hands of people such as yourself. After all, when you claim five countries are being bombed as we speak and a gazillion people are dead, it's not difficult to imagine you like that black guy in California.

That black guy? Oh okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one is "surrendering" any rights and wars in five countries outside of the US really has nothing to do with gun control in the US.

Government that provides you with benefits on a daily basis without which we would not be talking, you might not be living, and you depend upon for your current existence. Further, it is not "blind faith", that should be reserved for religion. The governed must participate in government by voting, speaking and being informed. I am relatively happy with my local government. The alternative to government is anarchy - something that you dance around but won't come out of the closet.

I hope nobody is surrendering their rights. I will remind you though: Don't surrender the right to bear arms.

Of course the government's guns have to do with gun control. Except it's We the People controlling our government and not the reverse. Gubmint "assault rifles" are sent overseas to "help" and what they wind up doing is mass murdering good people and other people only "suspected" of being bad people. When your government is bombing your neighborhood because some suspects were spotted there, and your daughter or wife get blown into hamburger meat, then you'll see the reflection in the mirror and romble romble demanding immediate change and someone to be held accountable for their murder. There's no logical or moral excuse for that kind of leadership. It's putrid inhumane and morally unacceptable. That's not who we should turn to, to throw a wet blanket over the entire country due to exceedingly rare mass shootings in this country. Inconveniencing upstanding citizens with another litany of impotent gun laws isn't going to solve anything. It's just another rung on the ladder to Statism and another big chip off the 2nd Amendment rock.

What benefits do I get that I can't keep my own money and provide for myself elsewhere? Bombing the Middle East isn't a benefit, it's a moral hazard that jeopardizes my liberty and security both, and my financial future to boot.

If you're happy with your local government, then stay where you are and stop trying to change the rules for everyone else who are happy with where they are. It's the quintessential liberal who has this amazing amount of faith in the DC messiah to find that miraculous one-size fits all policy to make the entire country color between the same lines in the same coloring book. We are uniquely diverse in the world because we have a limited government confined by the Constitution that allows 50 different states and their people to engage in infinite degrees of legal and social diversity. If you're not happy with where you are, you're free to go. If you are happy, it makes it even more unbelievable how adamant you are to jam your opinions down other people's throats by force of arms. When the issue you want to do this with is gun control, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Different strokes for different folks, ninja.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tthat has got to be the largest leap of logic I have read here in some time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tthat has got to be the largest leap of logic I have read here in some time.

Yeah, it wasn't quite as informative and well written as most of your posts. I always applaud the detail and effort you put into them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.