Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dem rep on Waffle House shooting: Restrict 'access to military-grade assault weapons'
The Hill ^ | 04/22/18 | Mallory Shelbourne

Posted on 04/22/2018 11:51:22 AM PDT by Simon Green

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last

uhh the guy did not have an “assault rifle” nor did he have a “military grade weapon”. Moron.


81 posted on 04/22/2018 6:33:03 PM PDT by FLT-bird (..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

My comment was a thought on why no one in waffle house was armed. They were all drunk.
= = = = = = =
My ‘comment’ was strictly sarcastic.


82 posted on 04/22/2018 6:35:12 PM PDT by xrmusn ((6/98)""Liberals suffer from PTDS -PRESIDENT TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
Tennessee Rep. Jim Cooper (D) called for limited access to “military-grade assault weapons”

Make it a requirement that politicians have at least one firing neuron.

83 posted on 04/22/2018 6:38:28 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

What an apposite point! /s


84 posted on 04/22/2018 6:49:07 PM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

You make a lot of assumptions, and seem to think that you know more and are smarter than anyone else. You also seem to think that you can see into the future.

You insist on using the term “assault weapon” because your favorite Hollyweirdos, libtard media anchors and your precious “sally soccer mom” tell you that you have to use a word that isn’t applicable.

Heller and McDonald didn’t use the term “assault weapon” because an “assault weapon” refers to a selective-fire weapon capable of semi-automatic and burst or fully automatic fire.

Heller explicitly, and in multiple places, outlines that the Second Amendment protects ALL weapons that are “in common use at the time.” The AR-15 and other modern sporting rifles clearly fit within that definition. Whether you and/or “sally soccer mom” like it or not.

You aren’t here crying about what may happen and rallying people to stand in the gap.

You are here screaming about the sky falling, crying “woah is me” and proclaiming how the ban is a done deal, the GOP is going to lose the House and President Trump is going to sign a ban on all semi-automatics.

To call you Eeyore would be kind.

Concern troll would be far more accurate.


85 posted on 04/22/2018 7:00:58 PM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

A Democrat hating on Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms? Wow, what “news.”


86 posted on 04/22/2018 7:01:10 PM PDT by Trump20162020
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

The RATs don’t care about victims of gun (or any other) violence. They want to confiscate ALL firearms, period.


87 posted on 04/22/2018 7:02:22 PM PDT by wjcsux (The hyperventilating of the left means we are winning! (Tagline courtesy of Laz.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
That $20K is not dictated by the government, it is just greedy dealers gouging customers.

The government dictated '86 ban fixed the supply of full autos. Economics did the rest. Dealers aren't being "greedy", they're charging the market price under the circumstances, and why shouldn't they?

88 posted on 04/22/2018 7:44:09 PM PDT by Simon Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

Drew68 is right. They will probably try to ban assault weapons, the Democrats and even some Republicans.


89 posted on 04/22/2018 9:07:06 PM PDT by GuavaCheesePuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
"The government dictated '86 ban fixed the supply of full autos. Economics did the rest. Dealers aren't being "greedy", they're charging the market price under the circumstances, and why shouldn't they?"

All true. But the fact remains that it "is" possible to buy and own fully automatic firearms.

90 posted on 04/22/2018 10:37:39 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel and NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
All true. But the fact remains that it "is" possible to buy and own fully automatic firearms.

Sure...but how expensive does government action need to make something before it effectively bans it?

91 posted on 04/22/2018 11:28:47 PM PDT by Simon Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

“Never let a misfortune go to waste.”


92 posted on 04/23/2018 12:53:29 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

I’m only going by a written, attributed statement issued by their corporate office.

Your mileage may vary....


93 posted on 04/23/2018 4:11:39 AM PDT by VideoPaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
"Sure...but how expensive does government action need to make something before it effectively bans it."

"effective ban" isn't the point of my comment. I was talking about direct actions by government and matters of actual fact. The difference between "de facto" and "de jure" is huge IN LAW.

I don't like the current state of law, and would much prefer the law (or lack of law) that existed prior to the passage of the 1930's law.

94 posted on 04/23/2018 5:23:01 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel and NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The difference between "de facto" and "de jure" is huge IN LAW.

Quite true, although any difference in terms of real-world results may be nonexistent. As someone else once observed, on a somewhat related subject, the power to tax is the power to destroy...

95 posted on 04/23/2018 6:27:00 AM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

A belated “thank you” for information I didn’t have at the time I posted.


96 posted on 04/23/2018 8:03:48 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Thanks for the ping and your comments at post #29


97 posted on 04/23/2018 12:11:58 PM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: lepton

“...o practical access to military-grade assault weapons,...”

Yes, and the other side KNOWS that. But it SOUNDS really “scary” to those inclined to pee down their own legs at the thought of an “evil assault rifle” anyway.

Try explaining that “AR” in AR15 actually means “Armalite Rifle” to a leftardnik sometime, then stand back and watch the confusion.

It just doesn’t register in their vapid, vacuous pea-brains.

Just don’t stand too close, because if it actually DOES penetrate the funk, the result will be as follows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Lnz64vXB8


98 posted on 04/23/2018 2:48:27 PM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: wjcsux

“..hey want to confiscate ALL firearms, period....”

Correction:

They want SOMEONE ELSE to confiscate all firearms.

They’ll start running out of willing volunteers for that little task real fast.


99 posted on 04/23/2018 2:50:24 PM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: NFHale
Try explaining that “AR” in AR15 actually means “Armalite Rifle” to a leftardnik sometime, then stand back and watch the confusion.

I hate to say it, but the current owners of the company contribute to the confusion. When Mr. Westrom owned ArmaLite, the company website noted that 'AR means ArmaLite'. That is entirely consistent with the fact that ArmaLite has developed &/or marketed shotguns (AR-9 & AR-17), a handgun (AR-24), and other 'non-rifle' products (AR-22, etc.)...

AR simply means ArmaLite...

100 posted on 04/28/2018 10:06:38 AM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson