Post-Dallas, We Need To Ban Evil Assault Rifles

Yeah, about the meme

As the nation begins to wrap its head around what happened in Dallas, Texas last night during a protest against police shootings, certain factions are already shifting blame from the suspect in the case to the firearms used. (Snip)

However, the rifle used by the suspect in the Dallas murders wasn’t an AR-15 variant rifle as many people originally thought. No, in fact the gun used was a 70+ year old relic that would not meet the definition of an “assault weapon” under most state laws. CBS News is reporting that the firearm used was an SKS rifle.

Unlike the Sig Sauer MCX rifle used in the Orlando terror attacks, which had similar features, controls and magazine to AR-15 style rifles, the SKS rifle used in Dallas couldn’t be more different.

Oops. Meme implodes

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Post-Dallas, We Need To Ban Evil Assault Rifles”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    The second best choice for mass murderers.
    Need to ban those too, pronto.

  2. Hoagie says:

    As I’ve been trying to eeesplain to the willfully brainwashed or hopelessly retarded Jeffery just calling something an assault weapon does not make it one. Leftists do this all the time. They try to control the language to control the discussion.

    BTW, I don’t believe they’re as ignorant as they try and make us think they are. They know full well what an assault weapon is but if they admit that then they admit to wanting to ban everything else so they lie. Always remember, lying is the natural state of any discussion with a leftist. If you keep in mind they are lying they will never be able to fool you into banning semi auto rifles. That way you won’t wake up one day and find your Ruger Mini 14 is illegal.

    The shooting in Orlando is a perfect example of leftist lies. The shooter or “mass murderer” as Jeffery would call him (again confusing a mass shooter with PolPot) was a registered democrat and a moslem who used a semi automatic rifle to kill gays. Jeffery wants to argue to ban “assault weapons” which are already strictly controlled and played no part in the shooting. But what Jeffery really wants is to ban the every day semi auto rifle that millions of law abiding Americans own.

    As I see it the problem in Orlando was a democrat, moslem killing gays. I think we would be more justified banning democrats and moslems than a weapon that wasn’t even involved.

  3. The level of stupid is incredible……………..

  4. Jeffery says:

    We thought Hoagie was playing dumb, but it’s clear he’s not playing. Perhaps it’s dementia.

    He’s afraid to discuss policy, instead relying on misdirection whining about “moslems” and “assault weapons”.

    In one comment he supports the strict limits on machine guns, in the next he denies it, refusing to answer why restrictions on fully automatic weapons are allowable but restrictions on semi-automatic weapons are a communist plot.

    He is either impersonating another semantician who used to comment here or they train together.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    He’s afraid to discuss policy, instead relying on misdirection whining about “moslems” and “assault weapons”.

    Actually, it is you who are afraid to discuss policy.

    The first thing is any law is the definition of terms. No law or policy can be created applied without a clear understanding of the definitions of the terms being used.

    Hoagie is using the correct terms as applied to the rifles. You are not.

    You have created the standstill and shown that you can’t debate policy because you can’t and won’t define the terms as they apply in the real world.

    You would rather lie about what is being discussed and whine while saying “they won’t debate policy based on my lies!”

  6. Jeffery says:

    As a nation, we’ve accepted restrictions on fully automatic weapons. Please parse this statement semantically so we can move on in the discussion. (I support what is effectively a ban on “machine guns”.)

    As a nation, can/should we accept restrictions on semi-automatic rifles/carbines? Please parse this statement semantically so we can move on in the discussion. (I support what would be effectively a ban on semi-automatic rifles/carbines. I DO own a few semi-auto shotguns.)

  7. John says:

    Teach what should be done ? Or do you think nothing should be done
    Where there are the most Huns there is the most gun violence

  8. Gregg says:

    John and Jeffrey,

    Once again, where are you getting your data showing more gun violence where there are lax gun laws?

    You make assertions that are contrary to every scrap of raw data that I have ever seen. The only place I have seen such assertions and claims are on gun control websites.

    So, please cite your sources so that we can verify veracity. Only then can we have any sort of discussion.

  9. Hoagie says:

    As a Constitutional conservative interested in preserving the Freedom of the individual I am comfortable with John and Jeffery and anyone who agrees with them exercising their right not to own any firearm they choose including semi auto carbines, rifles and shotguns. And since I am an anti fascist bigot I also believe that if they want to deprive me of the right to own firearms by having the government oppress me then they have crossed the line into despotism. We all want ourselves and our families to be safe, but none of us are safe if we are not free.

    Reasonable restrictions on gun ownership is the price we pay in a free society for having the ability to be the first line of defense for ourselves, our families, our communities and our country. It is right and reasonable to try and keep deadly weapons of all kinds, not only firearms, out of the hands of the mentally incapable, the insane, criminals, minors and other persons society deems not worthy to have that right. It is not reasonable to ban weapons normally used in home defense, hunting, target shooting, sports and collecting in a vain attempt to make mankind perfect and free from violence and crime. That will never happen. One of the main problems with liberals is they believe if they pass enough laws and just tweak everything the world will suddenly become Utopia. It will not. History shows that after they strip away the Freedom of the people and perfection still alludes them they turn to mass murder to “eliminate” the bad seeds. Those seeds who have been left defenseless by previous gun confiscation.

    “They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” Benj. Franklin

    If you’re worried about being safe at the expense of Freedom you really need to look elsewhere than America.

  10. Jeffery says:

    There are over 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of American citizens so there’s little chance of anyone confiscating them. The actual debate is whether it’s Constitutional to restrict certain classes of firearms, e.g., semi-automatic rifles. It is dishonest to characterize this debate as one of patriots vs fascists, or true Americans vs communists; or to accuse the other side of positions they didn’t advocate.

    Just because life will never be perfect doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make things better. Don’t let “The Perfect” be the enemy of “The Good”.

    Perhaps liberals are too naive, thinking things can be made better.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Gregg,

    Can you be more specific in your request? I don’t see that I made any claims about violence and lax gun laws.

    Thanks.

  12. Hoagie says:

    There are over 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of American citizens so there’s little chance of anyone confiscating them.

    I’m not going to debate the ability of the federal government, that collects money from 114 million people every year, to confiscate guns. I just think if they are efficient enough to confiscate trillions of dollars millions of guns are a piece of cake. Also if they demanded citizens voluntarily turn in their weapons millions of law abiding folks would comply. I could go on but it can be done.

    The actual debate is whether it’s Constitutional to restrict certain classes of firearms, e.g., semi-automatic rifles.

    Actually, we already know it’s Constitutional to restrict certain classes of firearms so that is definitely not the debate. Don’t lie to me Jeffery, we’ve been here before. The debate is whether semi automatic carbines and rifles should be banned. The problem is almost all modern weapons are semi automatic and more people are shot with semi auto pistols than rifles even in multiple and mass shootings according to FBI statistics. So why concentrate on the military look-alikes? Why not pistols too?

    It is dishonest to characterize this debate as one of patriots vs fascists, or true Americans vs communists; or to accuse the other side of positions they didn’t advocate.

    You are entitled to think those characterizations to be dishonest as it is your right to do so however, when people begin trying to decide which of my God-given rights enumerated in the Constitution I should be permitted to retain and at what level I can retain them they are attempting to fascistically control me and that ain’t American. The “other side” does not necessarily need to advocate a position if the results of what they are advocating will ultimately lead to that position.

    Just because life will never be perfect doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make things better. Don’t let “The Perfect” be the enemy of “The Good”.

    Perhaps liberals are too naive, thinking things can be made better.

    The perfect is always the enemy of the good because in a quest for perfection the good is trampled into dust by good intentions. And we can try to make life better and I would say we have. Isn’t life better today than a thousand years ago? Or a hundred? Or fifty? But the government does not make our lives better, we do. And many times we do it in spite of the government. Jeffery, the government is power. Raw, uncaring power. We as Free people must be very careful how much rope we give this power or it will be used to hang us. History proves the point. All you need to do is count the hundreds of millions of bodies across Europe and Asia in the last century to see the power, and evil of government.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D4FBRfFIxCU/V3-hExOu1PI/AAAAAAAA_-o/rHY7wlHYxKco2j-8FgeYHySVFb0c9aeZQCLcB/s640/1%2Bninetymiles%2B9yczuAHO01rzull5o1_500.jpg

  13. Jeffery says:

    You describe that collected taxes are “confiscated”. Should we not collect taxes?

    we already know it’s Constitutional to restrict certain classes of firearms so that is definitely not the debate.

    So it’s not a Constitutional issue at all, it’s a matter of political opinion. Therefore, arguments about the constitutionality and referring to opponents as fascists and communists are merely political tactics. Got it.

    Why not semi-auto pistols too? Good idea worth discussing.

    We’re a nation of over 300 million individuals, white, Black, Native American, Christian, Hispanics, Catholic, Mormon, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Asian, first generation immigrants, disabled, wealthy, impoverished, chronically ill, gay, straight, transgendered, liberal, conservative, far-right, moderate, men, women, employed, unemployed, children, orphans, abused, abusers, etc etc. Governments are people, my friend. Imperfect for sure, but with the objective of optimizing opportunity for all.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Government is the result of organizing the efforts and ideals of a group of people with a common cause. Otherwise we’re a collection of families or tribes.

  14. Hoagie says:

    You describe that collected taxes are “confiscated”. Should we not collect taxes?

    Are you throwing in a straw man to divert the discussion or are you seriously suggesting that taxes are not confiscated against the will of the taxed? Because if people paid their taxes voluntarily there would be no need for the IRS nor words like “compliance” or “enforcement” in the tax code. “We” don’t collect taxes, the government does. It’s been that way through history in case you haven’t noticed how bad a rap tax collectors get.

    So it’s not a Constitutional issue at all, it’s a matter of political opinion.

    It’s a matter of government overreach vs personal Freedom or have I not made myself clear? An opinion is not a law and a law deprives people of their Freedom and should not be made lightly because someone’s “opinion” is deemed more important than another’s Constitutional rights.

    Therefore, arguments about the constitutionality and referring to opponents as fascists and communists are merely political tactics. Got it.

    No, you don’t got it. As I explained before: ” when people begin trying to decide which of my God-given rights enumerated in the Constitution I should be permitted to retain and at what level I can retain them they are attempting to fascistically control me and that ain’t American. The “other side” does not necessarily need to advocate a position if the results of what they are advocating will ultimately lead to that position. In other words one needn’t shout they are fascists or communists from the rooftops if the policies they advocate are the same as those of fascists and communists. And they both are despotic and they both confiscate firearms in the name of public safety. Then they both proceed to murder their unarmed citizens on their march to the perfect world. Now, you got it.

    Why not semi-auto pistols too? Good idea worth discussing.

    And right there is the reason leftists are known as liars. You have finally boiled down the entire discussion to what I knew you wanted to begin with: total gun confiscation. Therefore, all your intellectual talk about assault weapons, full auto, semi auto, weapons of war etc., etc., was no more than a smoke screen of lies and misdirection to impose a massive Constitutional violation. So as a usual leftist liar it really isn’t a matter of opinion, Constitutionality or degree as far as you’re concerned it’s a matter of seizing all firearms from a Free people. It’s a matter of using the jack-booted heel of government to take away a fundamental human and American right. Nice going, for a while there I thought you were sincerely concerned with the innocent lives lost to gun violence when it was all agenda driven and nothing more.

    Is there any problem to which you don’t turn to government force to solve, Jeffery? I’m curious. Is there ever a time in that teeny brain of yours where Free men can solve their own dilemmas without the use of government force?

  15. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    Government is a valuable tool used by civilized people to solve their own dilemmas.

    Of course if your neighbor is disturbing your peace, Hoagie, if you have a bigger gun and are clever, you can kill him and his family, dilemma resolved. Maybe you could just threaten his family and get the same results.

    If your wife doesn’t comport herself to your ideals, Hoagie, you can force her to do as you want with threat of violence, or actual violence – it’s your family after all.

    If your mistress wants an abortion, Hoagie, she can go to the physician of her choice, OK?

    If you can make a million $ a year storing medical nuclear wastes in your back yard, it’s your choice, right?

    Turning your silly question around, Hoagie, is their ever a time in that itsy-bitsy teeny weeny brain of yours where Free men need to cooperate with their fellow man necessitating organizing as a government. It seems the founding fathers thought so.

  16. Hoagie says:

    Once again going the reductio ad absurdum route, eh Jeffery?

    Turning your silly question around, Hoagie, is their ever a time in that itsy-bitsy teeny weeny brain of yours where Free men need to cooperate with their fellow man necessitating organizing as a government. It seems the founding fathers thought so.

    Yes, they did Jeffery. And they did it in only 4,543 words and on only four sheets of paper including the signatures. It’s brief because they realized that Free men solve their own day to day events. The federal government was set up to protect the people and nation from harm and to supply ONLY those things unable to be supplied by the states and people respectively. It was not designed for ideologues to tell people what toilets or bulbs to buy or take the firearms deliberately put into the Second Amendment away from the people.

    Unfortunately, leftists like yourself Jeffery have been using the Constitution as a club to beat citizens over the head with when you can get a creative majority on the Supreme Court and the rest of the time you either ignore it all together or deny the meaning of what it says.

    Again, the entire Constitution was four pages but it took the leftists over 2,500 to pass one health care bill they wouldn’t let anyone read. The first document established Freedom for the people, the latter document took some away. So don’t lecture anyone about the Founding Fathers, you have no idea what they were.

  17. david7134 says:

    Hoagie,
    Why are you exchanging comments with that nut? He is stupid enough to vote for Hillary despite the fact that she is above the law, a liar, corrupt, and for a totalitarian government. Note that Jeff also is for freedom but he is a communist. John has many of the same sentiments but he is clearly not all there. So, you are wasting your time fooling with these nuts. I really think that Jeff gets sexual release by making people feel bad or frustrated. Always remember that Jeff claims to run a drug CORPORATION, getting the tax breaks that he complains that other businesses get. He also had his education paid for through the NIH, our tax money, and he set his business up the NIH money. He has no intention of paying the money back. And he can’ get the concept that AGW is a hoax.

  18. Jeffery says:

    Two smelly old men, dave and Hoagie…

    So Hoagie, you approve of the government you like, got it. Typical.

    Is it really your position that anything not explicitly described in the Constitution is off limits for government by the people, for the people? What does the Constitution say about semi-automatic rifles? Perhaps your problem is that you consider governments to be foreign entities rather than constructs used by Americans to solve problems.

    Anyway, it appears at long last that we have little to discuss, as you are so far outside the mainstream.

  19. Hoagie says:

    So Hoagie, you approve of the government you like, got it. Typical.

    Don’t you approve of the government you like? Or do you approve of the government you don’t like? You really make no sense sometimes. I think david7134 could be right. Trying to discuss anything with you is having a battle of wit’s with a defenseless man.

    Is it really your position that anything not explicitly described in the Constitution is off limits for government by the people, for the people?

    It is my position that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since that’s the law. What is your position?

    What does the Constitution say about semi-automatic rifles?

    The same thing it says about automobiles, nothing. Therefore, according to the aforementioned and above quoted 10th Amendment any regulations belong to the states.

    Perhaps your problem is that you consider governments to be foreign entities rather than constructs used by Americans to solve problems.

    Are you once again putting words in my mouth, Jeffery? When did I say that? Quote me, show me exactly where I said that. As a matter of fact I specifically stated: “The federal government was set up to protect the people and nation from harm and to supply ONLY those things unable to be supplied by the states and people respectively.”. So how do you interpret that as me thinking governments are “foreign entities”?

    Anyway, it appears at long last that we have little to discuss, as you are so far outside the mainstream.

    We indeed have little to discuss but it’s not because I’m “far outside the mainstream” unless by believing in the idea of our Constitution puts me there. We have little to discuss because I can tell you live in a leftist bubble, never hearing or thinking about any idea other than that which you are programed to parrot. You probably have few if any friends or relatives who are not themselves leftists so understanding how hideously oppressive you sound wouldn’t even occur to you. You are the type who believes anyone who doesn’t agree with you is either stupid, ignorant or racist. Because as a person of white privilege you are never wrong.

    I’m going to take david7134’s advise and no longer engage with you. You dishonestly hid your gun ban agenda in our previous discussion so I must figure you will do the same in future discussions. Frankly, you seem to be a very narrow minded person, not open to consideration of other people’s ides or even other people. You seem very angry and hateful and are quick to call people derogatory names. Most discussions with you soon degenerate into being called names and being on the receiving end of a plethora of sarcasm and snide remarks. In short there is no upside since you have been so well propagandized and brainwashed by your leftist handlers in education change is impossible.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9481 access attempts in the last 7 days.