Yeah, it's always good to know what the ignorant rabble are muttering about.

Excuse my 'you're' in lieu of 'your'.
I was going to say "You're a ... ", but edited myself; inattentively.

@LizZyG You have more restraint than me, obviously, lol...

I thought of maybe dying my hair purple. And I’m not even a Vikings fan. BTW I am angry with your Eagles @barjoe for what they did to the Bucs! Just sayin’!

Dolphins vs Bills next week will be fun to watch.

@Scott321 They're better than Tampa Bay. What are they supposed to do? Lose to make you happy?

Actually, I've seen far less of the once strong Right wing atheist population that used to be here. There was a Republican agnostic group that I've seen no sign of for at least a year.

@Sgt_Spanky They probably blocked you. They block everyone that doesn't suck Trump's dick like they do. I had joined to comment, though, so I still see them in my feed, just can't reply without writing my own post with a screenshot of the dumb shit they say. I'm still hoping they all end up in prison on Jan 6th charges.

@ChestRockfield yes they are fairly bubble wrapped and insulated, always fleeing from facts and reality.

Atheist republicans are an interesting lot. They have no religious dogma pushing them to be bigoted intolerant hateful fucks, yet chose to be such willingly….

@Buck I doubt their atheist credentials, myself.

@Flyingsaucesir Waste of time trying to have a productive discussion with a gun freak. They seem to think if they recite the weapon's stats they're having a conversation no matter what question you ask them.

@Sgt_Spanky Exactly right. I asked @Tejas why he thinks civilians should have AR-15s, and all I get is a song and dance; anything but an answer to the question.

@Sgt_Spanky The group is gone? Yay! I know the site automatically delete inactive groups. If there are no posts in a group for several months, the group will gets deleted... after a warning goes to the group founder.

@Sgt_Spanky, @David1955 Yeah, I've been told by some of the conservative that they'd rather schools be run by churches than the government. So, I too, doubt their atheist credentials.

Speak for yourself

@Gwendolyn2018 my comment was meant mostly as an insult. I should have said something more like "This guy is getting his text from a script". Evidence is repeated use of a non-existent word "shouding".

Okay, let's talk about the 2nd Amendment. Why do gun owners, mostly Republican gun owners, get so enraged at the idea of gun control? No one is saying you can't own a gun. Buy a 9mm and you have a gun powerful enough to protect you, your family and your stuff. Why does anyone think they need a dozen guns including assault weapons like an AR15 which was a weapon designed for war?

So you're feeling overwhelmed, huh? And it's the fault of everybody else? You're just a poor, innocent victim, a target for unjust persecution?

@Sgt_Spanky most handguns fall under the current classification of "assault weapon" mostly due to magazine capacity. And I believe we can own them because it's our constitutional right.

@Flyingsaucesir very dramatic response

@Tejas That was a total bullshit reply. Handguns are neither assault weapons nor weapons designed for war. The AR 15 was designed and built as an upgrade to the aging M-16 as the standard military issue so answer the question I originally asked, why isn't a 9mm enough for gun people to protect themselves, their families and their stuff? Why do they hate the idea of gun control if it simply restricts them from owning dozens of guns and/or assault weapons?

@Sgt_Spanky you realize the "ar" is just a style of weapon right its cosmetic and function only. You can have an ar15 chambered in 9mm 5.56 7.62 10mm most modern day calibers can be an ar styled rifle or pistol. I'm attaching a screen shot of what some people consider an assault weapon. You will see it includes handguns shotguns and even some revolver styled weapons. I know my shit, I take second amendment rights very seriously just as serious as human rights. So I know and follow all the bs around guns, and yes given the opportunity we would be left defenseless vs people who wish to disarm us.

@Sgt_Spanky

@Tejas Okay, I'm an outsider from the UK but follow the debate on this. As a gun advocate and supporter of the 2nd amendment can you please explain a few things?

1. As it is obvious to anyone that the US has a gun problem. (It is the number one killer of under-18s in your country.) Given that fact, why is any and all gun control resisted so vehemently by the gun lobby? No responsible owner could argue that background checks, secure storage, registration of private sales and heavy restrictions on AR-15 ownership would cut their 2nd amendment rights in any way. Whilst these provisions would not stop all gun violence, they would stop some and if it saves the life of just one child, wouldn't that be worth it?
2. Why does the gun lobby not offer their own solutions to this problem? I hear a lot about "mental health" as a cause but no "We demand better mental health care". If you want your guns, offer some ways to tackle the problems they cause.
3. Can you give me any good reasons why someone needs an AR-15? Sure I can see how you would want a handgun for personal protection, a shotgun and a rifle for hunting but an AR-15? really?

The 2nd amendment does not give you the right of unrestricted gun ownership. In fact, it is the only part of your constitution that DOES use the term "regulated". If you think that you could have open-carried a loaded musket through Boston or Philadelphia in 1790, think again.
Perhaps it might be time for you guys to listen to the guys who have to deal with this problem like the cops and less to the guys who just want to sell you more guns.

@Sgt_Spanky An assualt weapon is fully automatic. The weapons you refer to are NOT fully automatic. They are semi-automatic, and other then their style they are the same as any other semi-automatic rifle.

Perhaps if people actually knew what they were tlking about progress could be made.

@Tejas You're still just dodging his question. Please stop quibbling, and for heavens sake quit patting yourself on the back over your gun knowledge. You can know everything there is to know about small arms and still be a backward, knuckle-dragging, dumbass. If you want to impress people with your intellect, learn everything there is to know about, for instance, a field of science (like biology or physics), or be fluent in half a dozen languages. Then you will get the attention you crave. Until then, you're just another idiotic, developmentally-arrested, gun nut.

Now, back to @Sgt_spanky's question. The AR-15 is a military assault rifle that doesn't go fully automatic unless it is modified after market. It has a receiver that accepts banana clip, high capacity magazines that are easily changed out when emptied. It shoots a .223 in. or 7.65 mm bullet with a muzzle velocity in the neighborhood of 2500 to 3000 feet per second. If its chambered for a .22 caliber round we call it "AR-style" and note the different caliber. The .223 or 7.65 does horrendous damage to a human body. The weapon is designed specifically for killing people in great numbers. Why does any civilian have to have such a weapon? Why isn't a 9 mm pistol or the like sufficient fire power for home protection/self defense?

@273kelvin 1. I believe your statistic is wrong, it's the number one killer of people 19 and under. Including 18 and 19 year Olds to purposely inflate the number. Banning things like the ar15 would do little if anything to curb gun violence, most "gun violence" is committed with handguns. 2. The gun lobby has proposed many helpful solutions, many of our laws our supported by the gun lobby. Some advice from 2a supporters is not listened to by many lefties here. 3.an ar15 is just as deadly as many other firearms, ignorance around firearms make a villain out of one gun. Also the 2nd amendment is about the people being able to fight a tyrannical government if need be, it's not about hunting. Our rifles are not the same as our military, they have fully automatic options as civilian rifles do not.

@Flyingsaucesir yes bullets are designed to do damage that's a no brainer. your realize most hunting calibers are bigger and more lethal rounds right? 9mm may be okay in some instances of self defense but there have been people who have been shot many times and still not drop (shot 8+ times). That's also not what the second amendment is about. Personally I use a shotgun for home defense, its safer in my home and probably more effective. My point is people who are in charge of making laws around firearms need to know what they are making laws about, look at biden he thinks a 9mm bullet will blow your lungs out of your body he's on record saying he wants to ban all assault weapons again, knowing that handguns are the main weapon used in "gun violence"

@Tejas Again you dodge the question.

A bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifle is certainly a deadly weapon. It hits harder than a .223, but it's not capable of stacking up bodies the way an AR-15 can. You're comparing apples and oranges.

You split hairs and dance around like a goddamn MAGAt politician.

Your reluctance to answer the question speaks volumes.

@Flyingsaucesir you can buy an AR styled rifle in .30-06. Any question I've seen has been answered or is irrelevant.

@Tejas That's ok, your non-answer is an answer of sorts.

@Flyingsaucesir I answered your question more than once. Keep being a drama queen

@Flyingsaucesir How about YOU realize that unless Congress amends the Constitution all the "points" you discuss are academic because the Second Amendment exists.

@Flyingsaucesir, @Tejas Actually Mr Saucer, it is a PREFECT answer as it blows your 9/27 reply out of the water.

@Alienbeing PREFECT? Where did you learn to spell? Dumbass.

@Tejas Again, none of this is an answer to the question I asked. I can only assume after two tries you have no intention of answering the question put to you so I'm done trying to have a conversation with you.

@Alienbeing The AR was created as a fully automatic weapon which is why the military initially selected it as a replacement for the M16. It was designed as a weapon of war and it still is even downgraded to semi auto.

@Sgt_Spanky I've also answered your question. Reading comprehension an issue? Are you suggesting all semi auto rifles be banned? And for what purpose? Most gun violence is don't with handguns, so what is the obsession with rifles?

@Tejas 10 Like many in the gun lobby you choose to quibble about the statistics rather than address the problem. does it really matter if 1,000, 1,200 or 2,000 kids are killed each year? One child's death is too many, especially if it is your child. Whilst it is true that banning AR-15s in itself would only lessen the death toll by a small amount. It would lessen some of the casualties we see all too often in the mass shootings that happen all too frequently. But that was only one measure I proposed. Secure storage would stop kids from playing around with these things. Background checks could keep guns out of the hands of some of the nut jobs that make the headlines. Similarly, the registration of private sales would do the same and help keep guns away from criminals. Yes, I know this would not stop all gun deaths but it would go some way to tackle the problem. We have many laws that restrict car usage, speed limits, DUI, driving tests, vehicle roadworthy tests etc. that do not stop all road deaths but they do reduce them.
Which brings me to 2) What are these proposals that 2a advocates have put forward? I have never heard any that make any sense because each school shooting is accompanied by bullshit like "It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem", and "Arm the teachers" (like being a teacher would not be the job most likely to make someone go postal) or my favourite "We need to bring Jesus back into the classroom". So can you spell out these ideas, please?
Now can you please answer my question as to why any reasonable citizen would need an AR-15 other than bravado (in which case, buy yourself a Harley and look less like a dick)?
3) It is a myth perpetuated by the NRA that the 2nd amendment is there to resist tyrannical govt. It is quite the opposite. It states "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia" in other words a national guard under the control of said govt, not a bunch of assorted individuals. In fact, Washington himself used the militia to quell an insurrection in the whiskey rebellion. If your premise was true then you might see pro-choice activists outside abortion clinics in Texas and Florida armed with AR-15s telling Abbot and DeSantis to go fuck themselves but we know that ain't happening anytime soon.
The real truth is that guns do not stop governments, people do. Take a look at France. Their govt says "We are raising the retirement age" and what happened? The people took to the streets (unarmed) and told them to swivel. Meanwhile, your govt takes away rights to bodily autonomy, sells off your clean air/water and restricts voting rights but that's okay because you have your bang-bangs to give you a false sense of security.

@TejasNumbnuts, I asked you the same question twice and you gave no answer to that question. I even italicized it to emphasize what I wanted you to answer and still, you failed.

I'm done with you. Feel free to leave the site again. No one missed you.

@Sgt_Spanky 1. I answered your question multiple times. 2. I've never left the site and have been here longer than you. 3. Shows how much you really pay attention. Maybe try to argue like an adult in the future.

@273kelvin I'm sorry your reply is too long for me to stay interested, I prefer short and to the point. It's clear we aren't going to agree, and I really don't see the point in debating with someone who doesn't really have any skin in the game. (Meaning either side of the debate effects your life like it will mine) if you were an American I might have some more words for you, but I've spent enough time on disagreement. I've skimmed though your comment again, and my reply stands were not going to agree. You have a misrepresented idea of 2a rights in America, that much is certain. Feel free to dm me if you really want to continue

@Tejas Translates as - Usual territorial cry of the right-wing ostrich "La-la-la Im not listening"
Bye.

@Sgt_Spanky You obviously have NO clue. The AR was NOT created as an automatic weapon and was NEVER even submitted for military use.

I doubt you even know what AR stands for.

@273kelvin When you are a citizen and can vote your opinion may (although I doubt it) matter. However since your post reveals no understanding of American laws and customs it is unlikely anyone (other than California Dems) might listen to you.

You obviousy don't know our Supreme Court ruled that our Second Amendment says the right to keep arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. I suspect you think you know more than our Supreme Court, but you obviously do not.

Last, as was mentioned elsewhere try to make your post MUCH shorter, you drone on far too much.

@Flyingsaucesir Those pointing out spelling and/or typing errors and avoiding the subject prove they have no knowledge of the subject.

When you can illustrate knowledge of he subject then you may escapse being called a "dumbass", try it.

@Alienbeing 1) I am entitled to my opinion even if you think I am not.
2) Most of my comment was questions.
3) I can read, so if a sentence says "In order to maintain a well-regulated militia". I can surmise that it does not mean "In order to resist any future tyrannical govt."
4) The comment was long because I dealt with several points
5) I am not responsible for your short attention span.

@Sgt_Spanky I think the number of guns is (mostly) directly proportionate to a persons personal feelings of inadequacy. They think owning (lots of) guns will make hem feel confident. That they need so many, to me, indicates that it doesn't really work all that well.

@273kelvin considering the time the constitution was written I'd say it is definitely talking about defending yourself from government. Also militias are illegal in the us. Why would the national guard be our milita? They are owned and operated by the government. Calling me right wing just proves for the third time you lack reading comprehension or are not arguing in good faith, in my first comment I said I lean left. You are a very disingenuous person.

@Tejas My goodness you guys are so ignorant of your own history.
At the time the Constitution was written, America did not have or plan to have a standing army. Its defence was to be handled by "minute men". This was a volunteer militia where members agreed to own their own weapons and be ready at a minutes notice to answer the call of their commanding officer. (Note these obviously were under government control as it would be a bit useless to have any kind of army that wasn't.) A bit like er mmm oh let me think, oh yes the National Guard! (A similar system was used in the early foundation of Israel.)

@273kelvin if that happened today that would be civilians. The national guard is ran by the government. You just proved my point you dumbass.

@Tejas No, they were volunteer part-time soldiers. A bit like a posy was under the control of the sheriff. I suggest reading a little of your own history before you call anyone names.
Here is a good start.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Note I copied a little relevant part for your education.
"Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. "

@273kelvin you are arguing semantics. And you name called first. I don't believe you can be so wrong on everything.

MAGAs are such snowflakes. They shrivel up at any sign of disagreement. And they eat and breathe lies and conspiracy.

@Tejas It is not semantics when the constitution uses the phrase "well-regulated militia" and that was the govts military at the time. To say it means "to resist any future tyrannical govt" is blatantly bs

@273kelvin the us didn't have an army at the time, it was civilian volunteers to fight against tyrannical brittan

@snytiger6 you don't think people like the sport of shooting or hunting, of course it makes people more confident and they should be it's a tool to be used in certain situations. If I need a gun I'd rather have one am I'm much more prepared than someone without one if the need arises.

@Tejas You can call it "tyrannical brittan" if you want to (even if it is spelt Britain) depending upon which historical propaganda you adhere to. But the fact remains that it was a government-controlled military force, not a bunch of anti-government insurrectionists. A fact that is further born out by the whiskey rebellion. Where Washington himself used the militia to quell an actual insurrection of a bunch of Pennsylvanians who were rebelling against what they considered a tyrannical govt.
Okay, let us apply a little common sense here. The US Constitution is a great work. It lays down freedom of speech, assembly, religion etc. thus allowing a free and prosperous country to grow. It is such a great work that most of its tenants have been adopted by all Western democracies (with the notable exception of the 2nda) Do you really think (as the NRA narrative goes) that the founding fathers would put in a clause that says "You can shoot us if you don't like what were are doing"? There has been a lot of criticism of those guys in recent years but nobody says they were dumb.

@273kelvin I never said or implied you were not entitled to your opinion. I SAID your opinion is worthless because you have no voice in Amerian politics, AND you OBVIOUSLY don't know American laws or customs.

The conclusion you should draw is if you want to sound as if you know what you are talkiing about you need much more education on American laws and customs. Proof of this is your droning about "well regulated militia" when (unknown to you) our Supreme Court already ruled on that matter specifically saying the Second Amendmant is an individual right. Actually ALL rights are individual rights, and you should know that.

@273kelvin, @Tejas You are a joke. It is OBVIOUSLY YOU that does not know (understand) our history. Your 9/29 reply to @Tejas once again proves this.

Since law is my background, please continue to argue American laws, it will be a delight to educate you.

@BitFlipper Cite the shrinkage here.

@BitFlipper, @273kelvin In your uneducated opinion.

I'll related a quote from one of my law professors. He said "the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says"

Think about that, and when doing so realize that there is no appeal to a Supreme Court decision.

@273kelvin all history books call them tyrannical during that point in time. It actually makes perfect sense to add "if our government becomes corrupt and doesn't serve its people fight against it" there are similar things written in the constitution such as right to assemble freedom of press free speech and the right to bear arms. Please go try to see another perspective besides your clouded view of the US.

@Alienbeing if you are going to criticize my education, at least do it using proper English grammar.

Check your history. The supreme Court was not always the final arbiter of the law.

@Alienbeing The original post proves my point that conservatives are snowflakes.

@BitFlipper you call others snowflakes but you unblocked me how many times now? Anyone can be a snowflake but in this thread, I know for a fact it's you.

@Alienbeing The disagreement was NOT over whether the 2ndA referred to individual rights or not, so your rant is irrelevant. Read it again and you will see it was about the NRA myth that it is there to provide an avenue for armed insurrection against any future tyrannical govt. A premise so ludicrously absurd given how well crafted the rest of the document is toward freedom under the law.

@Alienbeing Oh and if we are contesting who has a better handle on American politics? May I remind you that you still have 20 bucks riding on your opinion that Trump will not win the GOP nomination? Given that, no bookmaker in the world would presently be stupid enough to give me the even money odds that you did. I will stack my insight against yours any day.

@Tejas Excuse me but that would be all YOUR history books and considering that they are now calling the slave trade "involuntary relocation", I will take a more rounded view.
You would have no argument from me if your constitution actually said "if our government becomes corrupt and doesn't serve its people fight against it" but it does not. Yes the1stA enshrines freedom of speech, assembly and religion that gives you the right to protest against the govt. (unless you are BLM) but the 2ndA is a separate clause and it says "... in order to maintain a well-regulated militia". A force which I have already proven WAS under govt authority and NOT a bunch of lawless insurrectionists. But if you can find that in "... in order to maintain a well-regulated militia" feel free to try because even if you can it would be superseded by the 14th Amendment which takes a very dim view on insurrection. A fact that Trump might well fall foul of regarding Section 3 in 2024.

@273kelvin why do you only quote part of the amendment? "Being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" our founding fathers knew very well that government are prone to corruption, so they gave the people many legal avenues to challenge them. Please keep your propaganda out of an argument it makes you look like an idiot, try to approach issues for a neutral standpoint. You are clearly unable to see passed you own bias, not to mention the foreign filter. To talk about what we teach, at least my country doesn't turn every white man from history into a black man because of white guilt or something. Fucking pathetic

@Tejas You just did exactly that by quoting only a portion of the amendment. But my partial quote was the given reason for the amendment. As in "I want a sandwich, I will be in the kitchen". The "...I need a sandwich" part, rules out any speculation about my motives.
So...
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” All one sentence

@273kelvin yes the part I pointed out was to show you that Individual firearm ownership was a necessity in the eyes of our founding fathers.

@Tejas I never said that individual ownership was in question. What I disagree with is the NRA myth that has anything to do with encouraging armed insurrection.

@273kelvin one man's insurrection is another man's revolution. Depends on where you're looking from

@Tejas Insurrection or revolution, there is still nothing in the 2ndA or anywhere else in your constitution that encourages either.

@273kelvin if you don't see how you are completely wrong I can help you. The whole tone of the bill of rights is built around people's rights vs the state written just after defeating a tyrannical government.

@273kelvin There is no contention about who " has a better handle on American politics?". All you can do is read from afar. You can never speak to the people, and you obviously don'tt know the laws and customs.

Do you even know that we are not a Democrcy at the Federal level?

@BitFlipper Please enlighten me about who can overrule the Supreme Court.

@Tejas It is a fact that guns bought for "protection" are more often used against other family members, either accidentally or on purpose, than they are used against criminals.

IMO, if a criminal sees you holding a gun, then you become a primary target.

Most people who own guns, don't properly store them, seldom practice with them, and are not proficient in using them.

Every gun has was designed for one single purpose, which is to kill. Way too many gun owners treat guns like they are toys, not weapons of death.

If you practice gun safety and practice the use of you gun(s), then good for you, but you would be in a small minority of gun owners. Most are not responsible about their gun ownership.

@snytiger6 to put more than a few hours practice in anything puts you in the top few percent of said activity. If I bought a bat or knife in self defense it's more likely that it would be used against family or used in an accident. Your argument is weak

@Alienbeing You can crow and I will take your $20 next year (unless you welch)

@273kelvin Learn the difference between a "crowing" and a fact. The FACT is you were unaware of our Supreme Court decisions regarding our Second Amendment.

Both you and @anglophone make OBVIOUS mistakes, and when confronted with your error you don't accept responsibility, rather you attempt insult. The mark of a child.

We easily see your evasions, and your limited kowledge of many subject you burp out.

The comparison to dry drunks is very fitting.