Things look great for them heading into the election: http://go.bloomberg.com/political-c...stie-boosts-n-j-republican-pre-election-cash/
I don't think he is anti-2nd amendment, but the GOP clearly needs to change something if they want to win in future Presidential politics. I think Christie is a breath of fresh air for the party and his polling numbers seem to support that.
I suppose agreeing with the idea people should not own military people killing machines could be seen as an attack on the right to form a militia...just as liking steak could be seen as a hatred of cows.
I could not agree more. Seeing how most deaths on the battle field are caused by artillery and air to ground weapons, I do not have a M777 or any Mark 82's.
The AR-15 can fire up to 800 rounds of .22 caliber ammunition at 3000 m/s up five football fields. There is nothing "Wrong with this, if your intent is to inflict maximum damage to whatever happens to be in front of it.
It is a very poor gun to hunt with, not even close to the accuracy desired for target shooting, an is impossible to conceal for protection.
So...a better question....for leisure, sport, or legal use.....
What is "Right" about an AR-15?
I have fired many time, in the Corps, the M-16....the older brother of the AR-15. I would love to have that or better yet, a M-14, as a hunting gun. What business is it of yours what I own, what I hunt with or what gun I like to shoot.
If you don't like guns or have a different idea about personal protection or home defense, then, well, good for you. Don't buy any guns or any AR's. But just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they should be banned by law. There is a Second Amendment and having a gun is my right. Hell, even the Supreme Court has said so. It is settled law.
If you don't like guns or have a different idea about personal protection or home defense, then, well, good for you. Don't buy any guns or any AR's. But just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they should be banned by law. There is a Second Amendment and having a gun is my right. Hell, even the Supreme Court has said so. It is settled law.
The whole "he is against assault weapons" argument does not make him anti-2nd amendment because it is arguable whether that is an infringement to the 2nd amendment and when such argument arises it is as per the Constitution left to the courts to decide- to date they have not declared it unconstitutional. Sorry, but you can't say your interpretation is right because it is your interpretation because someone on the other side could just as easily say that too 
This seems to be the rallying cry...I have heard it enough times to well understand the argument.
See..the thing is, no one says, hints at, implies, or in any other way recommends, pushes for, hopes to, or intend to take away your gun.
There is a push however, to disallow the purchase of the "type" of gun used in every mass shooting (above four) in this country in recent memory....I remember way too many. It may even be you will need to reload with a second clip if you are the worst shot this side of the Yukon.
It seems you might need to actually own the gun legally as well..I completely understand how this "Destroys the Constitution".
Ignorantly Serious
This would be very funny stuff except that you are ignorantly serious.
If I understand you correctly, you are stating I show ignorance in a serious manner. Interesting when we consider :
1) my comments contained nothing you will be capable of disputing, proving incorrect, or somehow managing to seem wrong or any more coherent than anything else you drop on the doorstep here.
2)My comment obviously contained a measure of humor...which is not considered a "serious" means of communication.
Other than that....your attempt at gaining an upper hand in this back and forth is admirable.
What little you know is fundamentally wrong
Here is what you incorrectly quoted:
Cartridge: .223 Remington, 5.56 NATO
Action: Direct impingement / Rotating bolt
Rate of fire : 800 rounds/min (fully automatic versions only)[1][2][3]
Muzzle velocity: 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s)[4]
Effective range: 400–600 m (avg 547 yd)[5][6][7]
The AR-15 is semi-automatic. One must pull the trigger for each round downrange. So you were wrong on the rounds per minute.
The muzzle velocity is about 1/3rd of what you claimed. So you were wrong on the muzzle velocity.
A good shooter with lots of practice can hit targets out to about 500 meters. But the weapons is far better at close in targets. I prefer a machine gun when firing at targets more than about 300 meters away.
It is a decent weapon for those times when one needs a bit more reach than one normally finds in a shotgun.
Why can't it fire more than 800 rounds? Does one's trigger finger get tired? One pull. One round.
Here is what you incorrectly quoted:
Cartridge: .223 Remington, 5.56 NATO
Action: Direct impingement / Rotating bolt
Rate of fire : 800 rounds/min (fully automatic versions only)[1][2][3]
Muzzle velocity: 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s)[4]
Effective range: 400–600 m (avg 547 yd)[5][6][7]
The AR-15 is semi-automatic. One must pull the trigger for each round downrange. So you were wrong on the rounds per minute.
The muzzle velocity is about 1/3rd of what you claimed. So you were wrong on the muzzle velocity.
A good shooter with lots of practice can hit targets out to about 500 meters. But the weapons is far better at close in targets. I prefer a machine gun when firing at targets more than about 300 meters away.
It is a decent weapon for those times when one needs a bit more reach than one normally finds in a shotgun.
How many enumerated statements are wrong?
See my post after this where I destroy your two most ignorant statements.
Similar threads
