Assault weapons with high capacity magazines should be legal for civilians to own and operate.
However they must pass a government approved assault weapons proficiency training coarse, which would be modeled after what the military requires it's troops to pass, prior to being issued a weapon.
It would be illegal to posses or operate a assault weapon without this certification.
All costs of certification would be payed by the person seeking the certification.

thats probably the stupidest idea i have ever heard...

why on gods earth would you want to give "civilians" military training before buying a AR?

so that when they go bat sh!t crazy they have the knowledge and experience to fully utilize their weapon to the caliber of the military?


Christopher Dorner anyone?

Wouldn't that be a de-facto registration? Any form of registration is a non-starter and will not pass.

Up already RH?
Why do you suppose the military requires such extensive training before they issue a assault weapon to a troop?
Feel free to ask a grown up.

because they dont want dipsh!ts on the front lines that cant operate their weapon during the heat of combat... they also dont want some dingbat shooting 30 rounds at someone and NOT HITTING the target each and every time .... well, maybe for the Army that would be acceptable, but the Marine's its completely unacceptable, they strive on accuracy....

that was a dumb question too Illz, you are smarter than that....

How do I assign negative stars to a thread? Can this shizz go any lower people...

Here my friday tip: Think, then type. If you cant think, dont type.

I went fishing today. It's fun. You guys should check it out. Should I explain what fishing is?

i might head out somewhere tommorow... spent almost a hundred bucks on gear, probably would be wise to use it...

Beezy.....that's the smartest thing I've seen you post!

Hmmmm, training, certification, issuance of weapon, . . . looks almost like Switzerland combined with the early US' "well regulated militia."

Right on Salmo g. Our Government should issue every able bodied male a
current military rifle and provide the training to use it safely and effectively, ala the Swiss.
I wonder if the 2.2% national budget cuts would prevent such an effort.

I don't think we need to force anyone into gun ownership, but we can make sure people who feel the need to own an assault weapon are fully qualified to own and operate that weapon.

I'll take one happy switch, some cheese and some chocolate.

Not every weapon is specifically designed to kill people, so modifying it to do other things doesn't negate it's primary purpose.
So requiring potential owner operators to pass a proficiency training course doesn't seem out of line, and it sure as he11 doesn't violate the second amendment.

The problem is some genious like Illhee or Joe Biden, who never owned any semi auto weapon in his life, would come up the the "approporate" training requirements..

Can and specifically designed for, are two entirely different things.

And as for you WRO, no I haven't ever owned a assault weapon, but I was issued one and I'm fully qualified to operate a M16, service 45, and a 9MM handgun.

How about enforcing all of the existing firearms related laws already on the books before you decide to craft some other fukked up stupid law that will solve nothing, save nobody, and do nothing more than possibly make a criminal out of law abiding citizens with the stroke of a pen.

Felons attempt to get guns through legitimate means at a gunshop, and are declined when the NCIC check is done. Prosecutions for this violation of FEDERAL LAW are minimal, if non-existant. They say it would be too costly to go after every violation.

So, rather than going after a felon committing another felony, so he can likely go commit another felony, you would rather try and control law abiding citizens.

People like you are what is wrong with this country. Always trying to control somebody else who is obeying the laws while ignoring the real problems caused by real criminals.

Go step in front of a bus.

+1,000,000 Couldnt have said it any better myself.
Lets go make more "stupid ass gun laws" even though we dont enforce the ones we already have. Only a politician or someone equally as retarded actually thinks that making more gun laws will somehow work. Also, lets make these laws so they affect only the legal/legitamate 97% of gun owners who are NOT the real problem...
Criminals dont care about laws, thats why there criminals... They will get there guns in any means possible whether on the street or stealing them. Chicago's Mayors answer to there gun violence issue is to "ban handguns" like thats going to make a gangbanger or criminal magically all of a sudden turn them in...

There answer is to mess with the law abiding citizens cause clearly where the real "problem". ANY new law is only going to affect us.
Lets do another AWB even though the first one didnt work and more people are killed with bare hands than "Assault Rifles", AKA: Semi auto rifles.
Lets limit magazines to 10 so if a shootout/massacre occurs the "victims" have an extra 2 seconds to live. However, lets make it so if you get attacked by multiple people, you may run out of bullets forcing you to reload. 2 seconds spent reloading in a gun fight is an eternity and can make the difference between living and dieing.
Typical libtardism. Lets make more laws even though the ones we already have are not enforced. Boy those criminals are going to listen now that theres a limit of 10 rounds per magazine or a AWB/Handgun ban. They are already breaking the law by carrying, felon with a gun, stolen gun, etc. However, maybe if we ban this gun or limit the number of rounds they can carry, maybe all of a sudden they will follow the law and comply. JFC, really?!?

Actual gunfights, Zero.
Force on Force Training/Firearms classes, Dozens.

Absolutely not goat fcker. Last year alone i took five 2-3 day training classes costing thousands of dollars and fired close to 10,000 rounds or more of pistol ammo alone. Whats your experience? Sheltered life? You have no idea what the flying fck your talking about old geezer.

i would rather take a course with Massad Ayoob than anything the retarded government would supply...

i could "train" you to to throw a baseball, doesnt mean you are going to do it like Nolan Ryan...

as DF said, why should i be punnished because of some asshole that cant lead a straight and lawfull life? i didnt make him do it, i didnt tell him to do it... but you want to punnish me?

+1 DF

I enjoy doing it. It's fun to shoot and broaden my skills. Same reason i like to shoot IDPA, do MMA or fish...

Heart attacks, lets hope not... Working 50-60 hour work weeks doing construction and bartending after going through 3 DVT's and 2 Pulmonary Embolisms on a seriously fcked up leg last year sucked! Im hoping for a good year.

I've had my pistol pointed at another person twice. Had it unholstered, at my side and ready to use twice.

After bus training, it's on to bullet dancing....
http://youtu.be/WmlTkAfvtSk

Come on you dipsticks let's hear how civilians should not be equally qualified as the military for essentially the same weapon.

because they arent in the military, and have no business knowing how the military operates... if they want to take a proficiency course so be it, theres a ton of them around...

funny how "basic training" is some sort of high bar everyone should achieve....

oh, yeah, it still wouldnt stop a criminal from obtaining one and using it... i mean sh!t, felons dont say, "im not gonna go get a gun because im a felon".... they say, "im gonna get this gun and not get caught biatch!!"...

How many people are killed each year because some idiot driver wasn't qualified to be on the road?
Having a license does not equate to being skillfull and autos are a deadly weapon.
There will always be those who are coordinated and those who are just clumsy buffoons. Can't make everyone either intelligent nor graceful.....(I'll leave this open for Butt Ugly to jump in)

1991 as a Denny's restaurant manager. Kicked a guy out Friday night (2:30am Saturday). Said he would be back. Lucky enough to get to close the next night. Ran into him in the vestibule, he pulls a knife, I pull a pistol, he pees his pants, submits, and the security guy freaks out. Officer who responded said I should have shot him. We were 10 feet apart.

1995 as a deputy we (three total) responded to a 911 hang-up call. Turn into the driveway in time to see a lady use a pet carrier to bean her significant other in the head. One of the latches catches him, and he starts to bleed. Head wounds really bleed. He runs to his house, she runs to her car. Two of us catch/slam her into the car, and take her down. Cuff & stuff her into the back of a car, look on the front seat of her car, and there is an old Colt .32 pocket automatic. Nice. We head to the house, knock on the door and all I see is a Ruger SP101 .357 magnum coming out of the opening door, we all step back and draw, and he realizes it is LE, not her, and he drops the weapon. They were drunk. He was less so.

1996 I was elk hunting with my uncle. We come up on a car blocking the logging road. My uncle hops out, goes to the driver's side door, and the driver starts yelling incoherently. I hop out, go to the back of the car, draw, keeping pistol behind my leg, as my uncle opens the car door. The guy was in distress. Turns out he was in diabetic shock, reholster after determining he wasn't a threat, get him squared away, get aid called, and made sure he was in good hands. I was LEO at the time, but in a different county, and off the clock.

2012 I was wrapping up cleaning out a foreclosed building in Aberdeen. We had signs saying keep out at all entrances, and during the whole project we still had transients, drunks, and Big Red, the infamous Aberdeen hooker barge in. Myself and two others started open carrying after day one of this, and once they saw we were armed, that pretty much slowed down the "visits". Final night about 8pm I'm loading up my tools going in and out, and I'm as far back in as you can get in this old casino, and I turn around and one of the drunks is coming at me. I draw my streamlight and blind him, draw my pistol keep it at my side, and proceed to yell at the guy and "verbal judo" him out of the building. He was running by the time he got to the door. Never touched him, never pointed at him.

Never had any legal repercussions from any of these actions. Carried a pistol since I was 21, and I'm 47 now. Friend of mine have been held hostage in robberies in their banks, and ambushed at home taken hostage and driven to their bank branch while their family's held hostage at home. I'm not paranoid. I'm prepared.

No. Go suck start an "assault rifle".

So WTF does that have to do with requiring citizens who want to own and operate assault weapons to have a certification for responsible ownership?
If your going to own a weapon that was designed as a primary military front line assault weapon, it seems that at the very least a person should be qualified to own and operate it safely.

a fvcking Musket was designed as a god damn military rifle... so was the Kentucky Rifle... people need to take Civil War training to own one?


i would tell you to pull your head out of your ass, but im afraid the fvcker might be stuck...

Thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that under this system you would not be allowed to own any guns, or sharp objects for that matter.
I think your Mom's calling you, better go home and see what she wants.

An optorectomy will take care of the problem.

so is an M 1 Garand an "assault rifle"?

I think this is where the belly button is removed and a lens is implanted.
Then when your head is up your ass, you can still see out.

I will not submit to any more restrictions that may inhibit my ability to protect myself or my family. My rifles are part of my right to self defense, an unalienable able right, which shall not be infringed. My right to self defense may not be incrementally bargained away with a law or laws that will not give me any more safety, and only serve to take away rights that I already possess.

Someone asked about gunfights.

What benefit would your training class provide? What happens to the weapon if someone couldn't pass your training class?

There are 4 people in my home.
Does everybody have to pass this class? If so, what happens to the weapon if one person cannot pass?
What are the specifics of qualification of the class?
Who specifically sets the standards for this class?
Is it an accuracy based qualification?
What happens to the weapon if everybody doesn't pass?
Are there going to be adjustments for those who are handicapped?
Can my boys use them even if they haven't passed the class?
Is there an age limit to take your proficiency class?
If an AR is owned by a "registered owner", can other people use that firearm?
What are the penalties for having an unregistered firearm?
What is I and a friend are out shooting, I'm registered, and he is not, and we "get caught" with him shooting this registered firearm?
Is there a perimeter distance requirement where an unregistered person must stay within in proximity of a "registered owner"?
Can I still use these weapons for hunting?
Can my "unregistered" sons still use them for hunting?

Right now I don't have to deal with any of this. So if I refuse to deal with any of these restriction, I go from law abiding citizen to criminal, is this correct?

Certification seems better than banning them, clearly we are not going to just sit on our thumbs anymore, the Jenni seems to be out of the bottle at this point.

Who you talking about we, you have a gerbil in your pocket?

I am also confused, is there a misspelled female donkey coming out of the bottle.

Its genie twat..

sweet jesus

So what's your plan wingnut, more guns?

You're going to pull the spelling card?

You might brush yourself up on the word "genius", twat.

Dan, he was talking about a "Genie coming out of the bottle" that head up his ass dude spelled Jenni, which would be a miss spelled donkey coming out of the bottle because its a Jenny...

FML "miss spelled" im not even going to edit it either...

I'd start with reading comprehension if I were you.

dude, you can keep your personal thoughts to yourself Jake, we have heard enough...

The shelton dwarf zinged himself....TFF. :>)

I know what the f.uck he was doing. I also know he's a dumbfuck who doesn't know how to spell genius, so he should shut the f.uck up.

Go f.uck yourself wro. My reading comprehension is fine. You are a whiny cu.nt. That's clear.

Genius is one word you really need to spell correctly.

Try enforcing the laws on the books first. The guns that are currently being targeted are used in less that 1% of crimes (assault rifles) and I would guess the avg murder/gun violence situation has less than 5 rounds fired. So what is the point of adding more laws that have proven to not provide any real benefit to date?

I've never been acosted by a garden gnome before, watching travelocity commercials is never going to be the same...

genie twat.........anyone remember "I dream of Jeanie"?

sorry.....old fart stuff again

You never learned to spell, either, you f'n donkey.

Fair enough..

Not being a good speller is one thing, but the inability to think is a life altering affliction.
Getting a degree from prestigious university, yet still lack the ability to reason is baffling.
Makes me think you were just drunk the whole time and paid someone else to go to class.
You seem to have short changed yourself, because the greatest gift of higher education is learning to think.

Agreed.. Go fuck yourself illahee, you have no facts to back up your agenda. Instead of responding to my ideas, you call me stupid. So fuck you, intellegent debate is not possible.

It's uncanny, but your approaching Leadeater stupid status..

This thread smells like dog$hit.

Not being a good speller is one thing, but the inability to think is a life altering affliction.
Getting a degree from prestigious university, yet still lack the ability to reason is baffling.

Think Pres. Obama.

Perfect example.

Jesus, and you told me I was dating myself, Holy Shi.t!


Fishy

Okay, here is your chance to prove the sheer genius you posess...

With your great plan, how many lives will be saved? How will it affect crime rates?

Is that compared to your kick the can down the road idea?

Is it a question you can actually intelligently answer with some sort of reasonable back up?

If you posses the sheer genius you proclaim, this should be a pretty simple question to answer that you should have already addressed when you came up with your plan..

I'll tell you what I know, after experiencing first hand the military requirements one must posses in order to be qualified to operate a assault weapon, it seems the civilian version could use some qualification and competency requirements.
Would it save lives, I really can't say, but in over 25 years in the military, with hundreds of thousands of people armed with all kinds of assault weapons and side arms, I don't recall anyone running amuck and killing everyone in sight.
You might call this lack of carnage a coincidence, but I think it's training, which is the root of the problem, to many people owning guns with zero training.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57571911/fort-hood-shooting-subject-trial-set-for-may-29/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/robert-bales-hearing_n_2074412.html

How about these 2, they both have the training you want to require.. (its easy to find more with a quick google search)

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-20/news/mn-272_1_assault-weapon

Assault rifles are rarely used in crimes and what percentage of criminals and nut jobs do you think will comply with your plan?

Do you have any actual or hypothetical percentages of crime reduction your plan will create?

If we are going to have an intelligent conversation, its not about feelings or this is what you think with no back up. You should have at least some concrete evidence or theory to back your claims..

If not, your just a twat and no different than arguing with a menstruating teenager over which american idol contestant is better.

But Ilahee would FEEL safer with the perception that scary gun owners would be government certified.


The Assault Weapon Permit is this year's version of the Discover Pass.

I only think like I have been trained, assault weapons require training and certification to safely operate, putting potentially devastating power into untrained hands is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen over and over again.

Stupendous..... We should train teenagers how to drive drunk as driving requires training and certification to safely operate, putting potentially devastating power into untrained hands is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen over and over again.

an "assault weapon" is just like every other gun, except they look scary... pull trigger, gun goes boom....

what were you in the military Illahee?

Just as an FYI, In 2011, more murders were committed by knives (1,694), hands, fists and feet (728) and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers (496), according to FBI data (323 total with All rifles (including ARs, Hunting rifles, etc)

As I asked before, how many crimes do you think your proposed training program would prevent? (Numbers, percent decrease, etc would be helpful descriptive things to back up your claim, feelings etc... Not so much)

Illahee argues with perception and conjecture. Examples and facts are tedious.

So your advocating to remove the driver's license certification process?
How many motorist deaths do you suppose that would create?

DL certification helps prevent accidents... are you suggesting that assault weapon training would then prevent accidents?


Are there many? Would that solve criminal assault weapon violence? School shootings?

JT he is trolling...

a person can not be this nieve or assinine because they are born that way...

The empty calorie content of this forum would immediately drop by more than half.

Just what the Dr. ordered.....

?

Remember Ft Hood.

So what are your arguments as to why civilians don't need any training to own military assault weapons.

You need money to own something not training. You would need safety training to shoot a gun and those safety parameters would be the same for any gun.

Most civilians can not own "Military Assault Weapons". Most AR's look like their military counter part but do not allow "Fully Auto or burst" so in fact they are not a "Military Assault Weapon". Most the ones people buy are only semi-auto. So you want people to get training for a weapon based on what it looks like?

If someone knows what they are doing or has the money, they can have there 22 made to look like a military weapon but it is still a 22. The looks of the weapon have nothing to do with how deadly it is or can be.

Rocket launcher returned at California gun buyback

Solano County's first countywide gun buyback program today collected 344 weapons including a military rocket launcher and multiple assault rifles, according to Vallejo police Chief Joseph Kreins.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/...un-buyback?lite

Fishy

perfectly legal...

you should have correct military training on how to operate a launcher, even if the one you have is inert and usless, because it looks like one...

itll save lives...

I feel safer.

The goal of the operation was simple: We wanted to get as many illegal and unwanted guns off the streets of Solano County as possible," Kreins said in a statement today.

"We all know that these very firearms are often used to commit violent crimes against our fellow citizens and in a variety of tragic scenarios, including suicides," Kreins added.

LOL ....... and you can say that with a straight face, Jerry?

Suicide by rocket launcher... Happens all the time

not a straight face, pretty dumb.

As hopeless as discussions like this seem to be, they are as compelling as watching a train wreck in slow motion. I agree with the thread title, assault weapons should not be banned. (However we here are all informed and know that assault weapons aren't really assault weapons; they just look like their military counterparts that in fact are assault weapons. Just in the interest of keeping things clear in this sea of mud.)

I've been reading a lot these last two months about gun control, and most proposals are failures in the face of logic and information. Two potential measures have potential promise for reducing gun murders, which allegedly is supposed to be the purpose of this flurry of near-activity. One would never know it by critically reading some of the proposals, however. I read that an estimated 40% of firearm sales in the US are by private transaction that do not include the standard background check that occurs when guns are purchased from a FFL store or dealer. Closing that gap reduces the opportunity for ineligible persons to buy guns. It doesn't eliminate it, but would significantly reduce it. And ineligible people are the folks whose hands we want to keep guns out of, not legitimate purchasers.

How much this measure would reduce illegal purchases I cannot say because there are no statistics on how many people would just ignore such a law. It would foreclose transactions that occur at gunshows without background checks, but it would rely mostly on voluntary compliance with the remainder of private transactions. I can estimate that compliance between 51 and 64%, but that's only relevant if you agree with my choice of statistical models. Nonetheless, it points to a significant reduction of sales without background checks from the status quo. It's major weakness is the same as what Dogfish pointed out in one of his posts, that the government already fails to prosecute felons who fail background checks at FFL dealers/stores. Closing that gap would be necessary for expanded background checks to have its maximum effectiveness.

The second measure that would reduce gun murders is one that has been talked about, but no one that I am aware of has yet articulated how to go about collecting and then combining records of mental patients with the gun background check database, that really isn't a database because the 1968 gun control law prohibits it, etc., and I really don't understand enough about it, and apparently the pundits don't either, which is why a well articulated measure that would achieve the intended purpose hasn't yet been introduced.

Personally, I don't have much faith in any preventative measure intended to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Sure, some people who were known to be fruitcakes have committed gun murders. But it seems like far more people who commit murders and are mentally unstable, were stable enough a few months before the act to have passed any mental health evaluation. I don't think there is a way to predict that a person will be ineligible to own firearms 6 or 12 months from now and thereby prevent him from obtaining them today. I think this is one of those outcomes that no matter how desirable it is, just isn't going to be on the menu.

Another measure, that is not being seriously proposed as far as I know, is confiscation. I just read last week, and this was by a better statistician than I, is that banning all future manufacturing and sale of handguns and successfully confiscating 10% of existing handguns in the US could be expected to reduce handgun murders by, . . . 4%. Of course, the carnage resulting from attempting to confiscate even 10% of existing handguns would likely be much higher.

As for Illahee's suggestion to not ban assault weapons but to require training and certification, as appealing as that will sound to the uninformed, would not reduce gun murder by any statistically significant amount simply because such a low percentage of gun murders occur with "assault weapons," about 2%. If there is a reduction, it would be darn close to "not statistically different from zero." I realize, that if it were my child that was saved, it would be very significant, but on a national scale in a nation where killing people is as popular as it is in the US, the difference would be difficult, if not impossible, to measure.

When I went through training for the M16, very little time was devoted to the "rock and roll" feature of the weapon, in fact they emphasized that you not use that feature, because it wasted to much ammunition.
So saying it's not an assault weapon because it lacks a full auto mode is incorrect, it's still an assault weapon even in semi auto mode.
If more people had real certifiable weapons training there would in fact be fewer gun related deaths.

You are correct the M16, M4 the military uses are still an "Assault Weapon" regardless of what mode you put the selector switch in.

By definition an "Assault Weapon" allows the operator to choose from "Auto, Burst or Semi Auto". So most the ones the general public can purchase do not meet the definition, since they only allow the operator to choose semi-auto or safe.

Maybe your point would be better taken if you actually understood the weapon you talking about vice just going on looks alone.

In my book, its only an assault weapon if you commit an assault with it.

Lord knows the gang bangers , nut jobs, and criminals would be lining up around the corner for those classes.

FYI, accidental gun deaths nationwide average less than 1000 a year, which isn't enough to really worry about. Take out hunter accidents, which most have had firearm safety training in state mandated courses and you have 8-900 a year.

Which would be money better spent, national firearms training for 100 million people give or take or cancer research?

"If more people had training the accidental death rate might go down, but the murder rate would remain unchanged."

If Hank keeps saying stuff I agree with, I might have to change my mind.

The big problem with almost every single gun control proposal is that they would do little or nothing to reduce gun murders, which is supposed to be the objective, or so they say.

Sg

They could make a law that if a person (without proper training) commits a murder with an "assault style weapon" they would automatically receive jail time.

You're on a roll!

Four Chicago-area teens were killed when their car plunged into a rain-swollen creek early Tuesday -- the latest in a string of horrific traffic accidents involving young people.




The toll -- 15 dead in three major accidents since Sunday -- underscores how dangerous driving can be for teenagers. Crash injuries are the leading cause of death for people ages 13-19, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, even though deadly crashes have been on the decline for decades.



How can we stop this senseless slaughter? Maybe some sort of licensing process?

No No No! We have to limit the amount of tires the car can hold.

OK, but only if the seats have pistol grips, carrying handles, and picatinny rails.

and full auto lumbar support levers...

So what's the answer from the party of NO, other than more guns?

That would cover the moronic approach, anyone with more than two brain cells care to comment?

this whole thread was based on half a brain cell when you started it...


now you want people to donate THEIRS?!!

Dos, you talkin about the dipsh!t that killed his grandparents in Renton a day or so ago?

if so, SWAT has him holed up in Oregon in a hotel, police here say they checked his computer records, and he was searching for gun shows as far away as Arizona... he also said he wants to kill more of his family, and law enforcement...

The only question that now remains is how many holes will this douche have in him when the gun smoke clears?

Bets?

they could go the Dorner route and burn the bitch down....

ill go with 17...

nevermind, they took him into custody...

http://www.king5.com/news/Man-wanted-in-...;fb=y&can=n

i guess he did suffer bullet wounds....

his own....

if he would have taken a government approved training course, he probably could have accomplished what he was trying to do...

oh well, theres always the next one...

I was just thinking that about your Dad not to 2MANY brains.

atleast he has one.....





























cant say the same for you tho Illz...

The post should read assault weapons cannot be banned, not assault weapons should not be banned. This all goes back to the basic foundations of our country. The founders of our country were very wise when they wrote the constitution, They realized that things would change with time and thus made it possible for the constitution to be amended. In article 5 it states an amendment requires 3/4 of the house to vote for for an amendment before it can be passed. No individual Not even the president of the United States can change the constitution. Personally I do not have an assault weapon that I know of and I am not sure what the legal definition is or if there is one. What I do know is That our right to keep and bear arms still stands and it shall not be infringed.

Has it ever occurred to you that your head can be used for something other than a hat rack?

For being the self proclaimed smartest [Bleeeeep!] here, you sure are lacking a lot of data to back up your theories.

If you want, there are a lot of boards out there deal with which celebrity is the hottest, which american idol contestant is the best, etc.. It'd probably be a better bet for you to try and prove your point there as they deal almost exclusively in feelings and opinions.

Trust me, you make it so easy.

Really, how?

Illahee never answers direct questions, he only plays the part of the contrarian.

Fixed it for you..

I was thinking more of the Merriam-Webster definition, but your (Urban dictionary) definition works rather well.

1. CONTRARIAN

1) an idiot





fixed it for you Duece...

i bet if we banned bed sheets we could get rid of terrorists once and for all... (no im not racist, i honestly dont know what they are called)

Always good to hear from the shallow end of the gene pool, so let's recap, NO and we just need more guns.
So that's the extent of your thought processing?

Illahee, has it ever occurred to you that your the dumbass and not one person has yet to agree with your stupid ass "idea".

i might be in the shallow end, but atleast im tall enough to stand up instead of using water wings and bobbing around like a turd in a punch bowl...

so, you havent answered anyone questions at all, you have just compounded the topic with more stupid questions, so ill ask again...

what is your government approved assault rifle proficiency training course going to teach?

basic marksmanship skills?

how to work the safety?

how to flip the sight?

how to extend the stock on collapsible M4 models?

how to operate a red dot?

how to put the clip in?

how to pull the trigger?

see, all of its stupid, because all of it can be applied to ANY firearm, because thats all an AR or AK really is, is just a gun with a bunch of sh!t on it... just because you put a huge fin on your retarded ass Civic doesnt mean that the car is going to go fast... just because their is a bunch of plastic sh!t on your gun and it looks like another one, doesnt mean its a Military firearm....

heres a pic of a friend of mines newer toys, KRISS Super V .45



his full auto MP5 is pretty slick too...

oh yeah, im willing to bet that Mark has more knowledge about the firearms he owns, than pretty much anything you have ever touched, inlcuding a twat, that you act like....

Damn, that would have ruined some soft tissue if he was shooting frangible ammo. Hopefully it missed the bone.

At any rate, it should qualify him for a Cheney award.

Here is a good recap..

IL - Eveyone should get trained

Most everyone else, your a fukkin idiot.

DF - Go step infront of a bus

IL- No you are all idiots and I am the smartest fukker here.

WRO- you spell like [Bleeeeep!]

Dan S. - WRO you are an idiot who can't spell either

WRO - Earned

WRO - Do you have facts or figures

IL- Your an idiot

WRO - Il is a Twat - No facts

Banter banter banter

IL - I am still the smartest Fukker here and I'll you shits should grovel at my feet and bask in my awesomeness

Most everyone else - Your still a dumbfuk who should consider playing in traffic.

I am sure my reader digest portion is missing a bunch.

Looky what leaked out..... You won't see this on the evening news....

Gabby Gifford

did you hear about the publicity stunt her husband Mark tried to pull a couple days ago?

Yes I did.

For those that missed the story....


Mark Kelly's campaign against "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 rifle has sparked a local backlash. On March 13, a Tucson, Arizona radio host published a photograph of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords holding an AR-15 rifle at a gun range. Giffords has since confirmed that the photograph is authentic.

James T. Harris, blogging at the website of "101.4 FM The Truth," wrote:

What is wrong with this picture? Absolutely nothing, and prior to the aggressive progressive opportunistic fear mongering in the wake of Sandy Hook, this picture would have raised no eyebrows and garnered little public attention.

However, in response to the exploitative political scheming of Mark Kelly, persons connected to Congresswoman Giffords released this photo in response to what they perceived to be her husband’s hypocrisy.

Subsequently, Breitbart News confirmed the authenticity of the image through law enforcement sources in Arizona, and obtained a copy of the photograph from a source who requested anonymity.

The latter source was present when the photograph was taken, and said that Giffords had requested it for campaign purposes during October 2010.

According to the source, the image sent to Breitbart News was cropped to protect the identity of the person on the right-hand side of the original photograph (to Giffords's left).

The source, who is a member of the law enforcement community, told Breitbart News:

"We were told she wanted to toughen her image. She asked to come out and she wanted to shoot a rifle. She had one of our guys out there to show her how to shoot an AR-15."

In January 2011, Giffords suffered near-fatal wounds in a mass shooting while meeting with constituents in Tucson. The perpetrator used a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol.

Giffords and husband Mark Kelly have since formed an organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, to press for policy changes such as limiting the sale of "assault weapons, " including the AR-15.

Breitbart News reported last week that Kelly attempted to purchase an AR-15 from a gun store in Tucson earlier this month.

Likewise, the AR-15 that Giffords is shown holding in the image is a standard, semi-automatic civilian weapon, according to the source who saw it being taken.

The source saw a campaign official take the photograph, which was later provided to law enforcement personnel as a courtesy, according to the source.

The source says the existence of the photograph has been known in the local law enforcement community for a while: "I'm not the only one who knows about this photo."

Multiple law enforcement sources in Arizona told Breitbart News that Mark Kelly's campaign against "assault weapons" has generated resentment within the law enforcement community--and a desire that the photograph be made public.

The source who witnessed the photograph put it this way:

"Giffords and Kelly came across with a different demeanor in 2010. To me, it seems like they've done a complete 180 because of what happened. And with the latest controversy--with Mark Kelly doing what he did with the AR-15 stunt--this photo needs to be put out."

While Kelly declined to comment, Americans for Responsible Solutions spokesperson Jen Bluestein told Breitbart News: "Looks like the photo is cropped."

Bluestein noted that there are "many images of Gabrielle Giffords with guns," though she said she had not seen the image of the AR-15 before.

At 1:14 p.m. PDT, Giffords posted two images on her Facebook page with the following statement:

Here are two photos of me that a conservative blog has dug up. I remember both of these days fondly. The first is at the Tucson Police Department firing range. They invited me to test rifles and tasers that they bought with federal funds, which I helped secure. The second was in Afghanistan while I was visiting with our troops serving abroad. My work as Southern Arizona's Congresswoman frequently put me in close contact with some of the world's most powerful and deadly weapons - supporting police departments, advocating for the Border Patrol, standing up for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting my constituents' and my own Second Amendment rights.

I grew up with guns, and I like owning them. So does my husband Mark. It's an interest we've shared ever since we met. It's part of my heritage as an Arizonan and it's my right as an American. Being able to shoot a gun is something I haven't been able to do since I was shot - because my right arm is paralyzed, and I'm less mobile than I was.

As I member of the House Armed Services Committee, I proudly spent a lot of time with our military, border patrol and state and local law enforcement. I guess the intention of those who have publicized these photos is to somehow call into question my belief that military style assault weapons should be more strongly regulated with background checks and other safeguards. I have never wavered in my support for those who serve our country. I fought to make sure they have the weapons and safety gear needed to carry out their mission, and proper health and mental care when their service ends.

Both sides of the gun violence debate usually miss the point. We don't have to choose between owning, using, and enjoying guns, on one hand, and preventing gun violence, on the other. Both sides need to come together to support commonsense solutions to gun violence, like keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people like the young man who shot me. That's why I'm fighting this fight. That's why I'm working to bring people together to support gun rights and reduce gun violence. I hope you join me.

"its so easy to buy a used assault/Military rifle, it only takes a couple minutes"


then why are you waiting 20 DAYS to receive it as per their policy?


he kinda "shot" himself in the foot with that one...

plus he said he was just going to turn it over to police...

so spend what 1-1500 on an AR and just give it to the cops? why not donate that money towards what really matters?

moron...

I don't know what's going on with him...makes no sense?

why was she shooting at a young Ashton Kutcher in a Cal hat tho?

It's doubtful Photoshop played a role.......more likely it's just that Ashton Kutcher is an annoying, no talent, hot cougar screwing, as.shole...

I can think of some locals for that as well.

This guy could use some training. I wonder how his hearing is in his right ear?


[video:myspace]http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/404_animated_gif.gif[/video]

That guy needs to catch a stray.

I'm thinking BU all the way.

That guy's hat tells the story. Do you think a concealed carry permit would be issued if he wore it while filling out the application?