So ban speed loaders for a snub nosed 38? I think you say it out of arrogance personally.
Massacre in florida
- Thread starter sistersville
- Start date
LOL! TOUGH GUY!
seriously, i know that came off as brash, but didn't intend in that fashion. i've been around him enough to know that you marines are a breed of your own and don't take comments like that lightly. my comment was more that he'd laugh in your face because "a big bad marine has only one fire arm". just doesn't make sense. either you're like a true anomaly when it comes to the mentality of the typical former marine, or you're just a gawdamn liar. i choose to believe you're an anomaly.
My grandfather was a Guadalcanal vet, owned only a 22 his entire life. Your friend is full of shit if he has it in his mind that all former marines have to own an arsenal
So, I can load my 38 faster and easier. Well, it is really 357 magnum with a 4" barrel. I don't need to give you a reason. I never really thought about it until my father in law, retired cop, told me to get a couple of them as it would be easier to load.
Like I said, ignorance. You have no reason for it other than for shits and giggles.
damn, jump to conclusions often? huge difference between being proud to own several and an arsenal. a former marine owning just one firearm and supporting gun control . . . yeah, he'd laugh in your face.
btw, lol, just threw the "former marine" thing in there to see what the bite would be. a true marine will be quick to let a person know there's no such thing as a "former marine". hell, i've said that to 4 retired marines that i've met over the past couple years just to see what they'd say . ..
"so, you're a former marine, huh?"
in all instances, i've received a stern look followed by, "there's no such thing as a former marine, son, only retired marines."
you're the first to accept that and then actually use it as though it's acceptable to you. quite telling.
i disagree. it's called protection. with all the crazies out there toting firearms, i damn sure ain't carrying around a single shot nor a bolt action rifle. no, my semi auto.45 with dual 30 round clips is what i want.
how ironic would it be a hillbilly like me having to protect a big bad marine who believes he's straight outta the matrix and doesn't believe in owning guns . . .
The term x Marine is what throws us off. Saying former Marine is how you differ yourself from those who are still on actuve duty. Your friend sounds like a Marine who was hazed and IPT’d a lot, so his opinion like yours means shit to me.
We should ban belts. No one actually needs one... they're just worn for shits and giggles. And some parents use them to beat their kids. Good riddance to belts.
It is illegal for someone that is a "mental defective" to possess a firearm. The problem is, they have to be adjudicated as such. One fix would be to change the law to prevent someone that is being treated for mental health issues from possessing guns. The issue then is two-fold. First, where do you draw the line (for example, should someone treating for depression or anxiety be precluded)? Second, how do you create a database to track such treatment without violating several privacy laws already in place and/or Constitutional rights?
I'm all for reasonable firearms regulations, and without a doubt, there is a gap in the law in this area. The questions are (1) can you close this gap, and if so, (2) how?
Last edited:
Now you’re just showing how ignorant some of you anti gun control heroes truly are.
Yes, your comparison of belts and AR-15s is spot on. Jesus some of you folks should not be able to own weapons, it’s obvious you have a mental health issue.
yeah, lol, that's what he was for 20 years. for you to attack a fellow marine says quite a bit about you.
For you to use a fellow marine to attack me says all I need to know about you, and if he keeps company with you. Well..,,
I quoted your post saying that herdman was ignorant and only wanted a speed loader for shits and giggles.
I was trying to point out that your assertion that we should ban something because no one "needs" it is an extremely weak argument. Unfortunately you weren't bright enough to keep up with the conversation or realize this.
Carry on
You bring no up belts as an argument against gun control and you say my stance is weak? Horrible comparison that makes literally no sense
Easy, when I feel the need to be protected by the likes of you is a day that’ll never come. Second, how many times have you felt the need to protect yourself and if that day EVER happens you couldn’t do that with a revolver? How many shots do you need? Who are you protecting yourself against? Rifle squad? Zombie Apocalypse? Please explain why anyone needs an AR15, semi auto weapon to protect themselves? It’s pure ignorance for those folks who argue these type weapons for protection when history has proven we protected ourselves just fine with much less fire power. And now history is showing us how much carnage these weapons are capable of causing. Not one of you would have the balls to tell a parent of these kids gunned down how wrong they are to stand against your opinion. And here I am not arguing for a total ban of weapons I FVCKING OWN ONE, but I’m being chastised for my opinion against one thing, the general public owning weapons designed for a battlefield and not a school playground. It’s insane to me you can’t see the difference here.
Wow... You still can't grasp it?
The belt statement was a joke to show that your reasoning behind banning revolver speed loaders was weak. Now your little beanbrain thinks "hurr durr he compared belts to ar-15s/gun control."
I'm not even against additional gun control, but you probably think I'm a gun nut because you struggle with comprehension.
jesus, man, get control of yourself. AR's were not designed for the battlefield and neither were semi auto pistols. listening to this ignorance from someone like greed, KKKvntry, or the ohio dick is one thing, but a "former" marine? smdh.
then, in typical lefty fashion, you make dramatic comments as though they're true when they couldn't be farther from truth . . .again, get control of yourself.
oh, really? well please feel free to correct the statement you quoted with factual information. otherwise, go back to pranking the nurse in your retirement home.
The AR is very similar to the M4, which is a scaled down version of the M16.
The rifle has been an American staple for decades. Former Green Beret Barry Sadler sang an ode to his AR-15 he used in the Vietnam war in the 1960s, entitled “One Son of a Gun of a Gun.” A line from the song: “You see this AR-15, she’s hot and she’s mean, and she ain’t built for love or fun. And yet this AR-15 is part of the team. She’s one son of a gun of a gun.”
your point? you have none because the AR platform was not designed for military use. the M16 is a redesigned and militarized AR15.
lol, the AR15 used in vietnam was actually a CAR-15 and wasn't the same as the armelite rifle 15.
how's it feel as a former marine to be schooled by a retard?
Everything related to AR 15 screams military style weapon, and once again has no use being sold to general public.
http://time.com/5160267/gun-used-florida-school-shooting-ar-15/
http://time.com/5160267/gun-used-florida-school-shooting-ar-15/
Well that's because you never leave Bum Fvck, OutWayne.
I've heard it plenty. Come here and I can take you to a rally every month that wants all the guns gone. Or all the abortions (even to save a mother's life) gone. Or anything, really. Welcome to the Big City.
because it looks like one? ahhhh, the ole, well it looks like a military gun, so it must be a military gun argument. give me a break, former marine.
look, if you have an argument (you did), stick to it. your argument was "auto load capable weapons". then, you changed and indicated those developed for military use. they weren't. even going so far as to say the AR15 was used in vietnam because some rando dude wrote a song about using it. it wasn't.
now, the AR looks like it's militarized. whoopty shit. there are dozens of semi auto hunting rifles that don't look militarized. this should get you back to your original argument.
at the end of the day, i actually agree with you to an extent. i don't have an issue with semi-auto rifles in the right hands. i dont' see the need for "auto load capability", although it is pretty damn cool to load a 30 round clip in seconds. as indicated, i have one and have several 30 round clips for it. it's fun as shit to shoot. where the problem lies is the ability for people like the fvckup in FL or in most other similar situations being approved to purchase one when it's been proven after the fact that they probably wasn't the best person to have been approved to purchase such a firearm. the problem lies in the approval to purchase process. these crazy fvckers are going to kill whether they get their hands on a single action or semi auto, doesn't matter.
fun fact: i can hunt with my AR15 .300 blackout, but it's illegal to use greater than a 5 capacity magazine while doing so. and, that sucks, becuase there's nothing i'd rather do than rattle off 2 or 3 30 round clips when i come upon some son of a bitch hunting in my spot.
Last edited:
Then, why not demand for the school systems in America to put armed security/police/guards and make these soft targets hardened? Put in better electronic surveillance and security system. Electronic detection devices. They do it in airports why not schools?
