Military-Grade, Assault Weapons

[AURaptor 1,137]

Remember the Daily News reporter who claimed firing an AR-15 gave him a temporary case of PTSD? Of course you do. We’ve seen the analytics on that article. Feel no shame in laughing at that fecalpatty. Think of this post as a delicious followup to the entrée from yesterday. Because a 7 year old girl made that wimpy reporter her bitch.

http://louderwithcro...r/#.V2SFv_krIdU

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

Umm, that's only 2 cited.

# 1 - the '94 Assault Weapons was basically a bunch of political hooey ( a technical term ), and mostly meaningless, as it dealt more w/ the appearance of a gun than the workings.

Reagan got this one wrong, I hate to say. Might have been suffering from early stages of his disease, is the best I can offer.

# 2 - The Brady Bill concerned a waiting period for handguns. It wasn't a ' ban' on the sale of firearms to law abiding citizens.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

That was also before the NICS instant check system was put into effect. Waiting periods were ineffective at best. Ask the numerous women who were killed by ex-husbands/boyfriends, Oh wait......

[alexava 6,974]

Umm, that's only 2 cited.

# 1 - the '94 Assault Weapons was basically a bunch of political hooey ( a technical term ), and mostly meaningless, as it dealt more w/ the appearance of a gun than the workings.

Reagan got this one wrong, I hate to say. Might have been suffering from early stages of his disease, is the best I can offer.

# 2 - The Brady Bill concerned a waiting period for handguns. It wasn't a ' ban' on the sale of firearms to law abiding citizens.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

That was also before the NICS instant check system was put into effect. Waiting periods were ineffective at best. Ask the numerous women who were killed by ex-husbands/boyfriends, Oh wait......

no way to know it didn't help at all. If it saved someone from getting killed you would not know it it didn't hurt anyone either

[cooltigger21 0]

Umm, that's only 2 cited.

# 1 - the '94 Assault Weapons was basically a bunch of political hooey ( a technical term ), and mostly meaningless, as it dealt more w/ the appearance of a gun than the workings.

Reagan got this one wrong, I hate to say. Might have been suffering from early stages of his disease, is the best I can offer.

# 2 - The Brady Bill concerned a waiting period for handguns. It wasn't a ' ban' on the sale of firearms to law abiding citizens.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

That was also before the NICS instant check system was put into effect. Waiting periods were ineffective at best. Ask the numerous women who were killed by ex-husbands/boyfriends, Oh wait......

no way to know it didn't help at all. If it saved someone from getting killed you would not know it it didn't hurt anyone either

People have been while waiting to get through the background check and waiting periods.

[RunInRed 18,113]

This is why we need new gun laws on the booksPosted by The Other 98% on Thursday, June 23, 2016

[Auburn4life 24]

NEWS FLASH! Dems don't care about saving lives either, they care about making statements and are more concerned about winning elections.

http://opinion.ijr.com/2016/06/257132-next-time-a-democrat-demands-congress-do-something-on-gun-control-ask-them-this/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=partners&utm_campaign=bencarson&utm_term=prm6

two of the four gun control bills were actually sponsored by Republicans and torpedoed down by Democrats.

I guess the Republicans should have done a sit-in also, since the Dems blocked 2 of their bills?