I didn't know what MeidasTouch was so I visited the site (but not by watching the video). It's basically an extremely and misleadingly biased hatchet job site against Trump and all things connected. It's so one way I felt like I needed a shower afterwords. In other words, it was pretty much how I feel after reading your body of posts. Yuk.
The best line the professor has in the interview was one that perfectly describes you. After laying out the romanticization that is put forth in Disney movies and even government guides for teachers that have been proven to be objectively false, he says:
that reason is not because they have pistol grips and detachable mags and are semi-auto, the way they are legally limited in this country. It's because they are fully auto when used militarily, and THAT is mostly what makes them more efficient at killing people.
Well, I suspect I won't be successful in trying to move your opinion on this . . . . But, you are partly right and partly wrong. For example, pistol grips do not make a firearm more efficient at killing anything. They do enable the firearm to be carried in a different manner and assist in shooting from different positions. But that applies to any firearm, not just AR's, and obviously handguns, hence the name. All magazines do is increase the capacity of any given firearm. The bigger the mag, the more capacity before one has to take a couple seconds and insert a new magazine. However, that is not unique to AR's and applies to all firearms with detachable magazines including the vast majority of rifles, all semi-auto handguns and even many models of shotguns including the slug shotgun I have used for hunting deer. There is nothing about "pistol" grips or magazines that is unique to AR's and that take is simply a part of the "they look scary" talking point of those who have received their firearm education from Hollywood or organizations like Brady.
Having pistol grip and detachable mags is the definition of the platform
No, Iām not partly wrong. Anyone educated on firearms knows the design of the weapon is to facilitate killing people. Not animals, not targets. Yea obviously you can use them to do that and people do. But those weapons were designed for military purpose and it wasnāt for the military to shoot squirrels. Gun rights defenders hate to acknowledge this cause itās an argument of the left for banning the platform. but to deny it is just idiotic and defies logic and common sense and makes us look like morons. Just own it. The vast majority of gun owners own them for self defense. Self defense against what? Targets? So if youāre serious about the possibility of having to kill someone itās only reasonable to have a weapon designed specifically to do so and I donāt fault anyone for recognizing that.
I didn't necessarily like the video that much in entirety because I thought it errant at times, but its point was valid. Basic human nature and the nature of life itself is not properly understood and considered by us, particularly not by the liberal crowd.
I assume itās because you find it the most effecient at killing turkeys. But in terms of the constitutionality of gun ownership shooting turkeys or hunting in general is irrelevant. The right to bear arms is the right to bear arms to defend yourself. And if thereās a weapon thatās more effecient than others in doing so then we should be able to own it.
Where did I write that Native Americans were perfect human beings? Among competing tribes and European explorers, they could be as savage as any other murderous civilization that we know about. What I'm mocking is the author's method of blaming everything he doesn't like on liberalism simply because he has an obvious axe to grind. His history teacher was a liberal who taught him only lies. Environmentalists are liberals who, according to him, hold early civilizations in esteem as idealistic role models. What a pile of crap! The only liar here is him.
There is a reservation near Chadron, NE. It is worse than Cherokee. I know teachers that work on some reservations, I want no part of it.
Take away the fully auto firing function of military rifles and there is no difference in killing an animal or killing a human with any weapon. What facilitates killing one will facilitate killing the other. There is no design or feature other than the fully auto function that makes a rifle essentially more suitable for military action than for other purposes.
convenience. It's so that when you get tired of slaughtering turkeys, you can go out and slaughter people without having to change rifles.
he better get used to that.Vance spox blasts AP for 'brazenly lying' with out of context school shooting quote: 'Lost all credibility'
An Associated Press headline said Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance called school shootings a "fact of life" without the full context of his comments.www.foxnews.com
The left just can't help themselves.
I understand how someone as wrapped up in MAGA as you has a problem with the site and its message, but tell me this. What did you find that you consider "misleading"?
@bluetoe don't answer, Be like Kameltoe and her libs here. They never answer a question just like their leader.
at the MTN site? The one-sidedness for starters. In your postings? Pretty much everything.
MeidasTouch doesn't claim to be an impartial news organization. Of course they are biased in their reporting. We have those types of independently owned and operated media companies on both sides that are driven by their own agendas. Are you new to all of this?
https://meidasnews.com/
And a total lie. No bias here.https://meidasnews.com/
Latest News
News
JD Vance Says School Shootings Are a 'Fact of Life'
this is literally the first thing I came across
it's hilarious that you just got through debunking this only a few posts ago.
the weapon was designed and sold to the military as an effecient machine for killing people. Nothing you posted changes that. Thatās its primary purpose. You can drive nails with it for all I care but itās still designed for killing people. Not animals, not targets, not for show. If your point is that itās used a lot for other stuff as well then fine. But itās designed to be effecient in shooting people. And once again I have no problem with that. Thatās why I own one. Iām just being honest about it. But Iāll go to the shooting range and fire off some rounds then come home and handle the squirrels in my bird feeder to magically alter its design purpose if that helps you defend the constitutionality of owning it.
Well it is a fact of life. I donāt know the problem here if he indeed said that. If a society has the right to own guns people are going to abuse that right and schools are fertile soil to cultivate the sick thinking and opportunity that enables it. Freedom comes with a cost. As things stand now kids getting shot in school is part of that price. Americans are not willing to sacrifice their rights necessary to stop it as far as gun laws are concerned.
He didn't say that is the issue. Let's take veterans and retired cops and put them in schools. Again this is a parenting issue.
Well yea thatās a great idea. But itās a great idea cause these shootings are indeed a fact of life. If he had said that I wouldnāt have a prob with it.
The left is in an uproar over something misquoted and taken out of context which they are great at.
He said he doesn't like that this has become a fact of life. There is a big difference. You are the typical lying sack of shit that most lefties are.
well, nothing I posted changes you saying that nothing I posted changes that. And it's true the weapon was designed, and it's true that it was subsequently sold to the military; but I give you AGAIN what changes what you have been trying to convey...
100%. I donāt hunt, I donāt target shoot, itās not a hobby, i donāt play GI joe, I own guns to kill people I feel are threatening my life or my familyās and thatās despite 30 yrs of martial arts training. I own different guns for different scenarios. Iām a responsible owner and observe all laws regarding handling and permits and such. I think thatās the truth with most gun owners. Why itās politically incorrect to acknowledge that is beyond me.
Yes itās a good design for other purposes. But the original design and purpose was for killing people. Thereās absolutely nothing incorrect with stating that. Also youāre lumping in my response to poop regarding the platform of ar style weapons with the ar itself. So to clarify. The ar was designed for the purpose of killing people. It was sold to the military on the basis that the military recognized its use in killing people. Was the ar itself designed specefically FOR the military or with it in mind? I Dont know and didnāt intend to imply that.
and just as I knew you would, you verify the second part of my previous post that everything you post is intended to mislead. If you read @nctransplant 's article on this very thing, you'll see that the 'X' or whatever it's called was removed and the misleading title was changed by AP since it did not reflect what Vance's words were conveying AT ALL. But we all know that you know that already.
