January 19th Talking Points

[losttrail]

"So you support the restriction and/or removal of my Second Amendment rights? Please select another of the Amendments from the Bill of Rights that is near and dear to you, that I may restrict and or remove."

[USAFGopherMike]

"Why don't you go listen to MrColionNoir and his take on how to stopping mass shootings." "PS, you're part of the problem."

[hollohas]

Does anyone know the number of M16/variants that have been produced for the US Military over the years? And how many AR15/variants have been produced for the public? I know it's all semantics but if there have been more AR15's produced then calling them "military style rifles" is all wrong...instead the military would be using "citizen style rifles". But hey, I don't know the actual numbers...

But more on topic, my simple question to the anti's is: "What is a military style weapon?" When they go on about AR15's, AK's, cosmetic features and 30-round "clips" I counter with the M1 Garand. They don't know it but I educate them that Patton called it the "Greatest battle implement ever devised" and that it was a contributor to us winning WWII and was used to fight all the way up to Vietnam. so it is without a doubt a military weapon. Then I go on to tell them it shares not a single "military style feature" that they want to ban. It doesn't have adjustable stocks, no flash suppressor, no forward "grips", no detachable mags, it even falls within the 10-round limit and most importantly, it isn't BLACK. But it damn well won a lot of battles. It was purposely built for war, yet I can buy one and have it shipped to my door.

Some anti's counter, "well, that is outdated technology like a musket. What we want to ban is the new battlefield technology." At which point I ask them if then in 20 years when the military no longer uses the M16 variant, if then it will be ok for the public to own M16's... since old technology is not deadly and all...