Good for the Sandy Hook families!

by **Vlad** Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:01 pm

They're suing the manufacturer of the AR15, Remington. It probably won't go anywhere, but I'm happy to see them doing it. This is not a weapon designed for self-defense or hunting. It is designed for mass killing. There's a reason that fucker picked the AR15 over all of the other guns he had in his car. He needed to kill as many as he could, as fast as he could.

Throw everything you got at 'em. If the judge wants to dismiss the case, let that be on his conscience.

by Guest Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:14 pm

Vlad wrote:They're suing the manufacturer of the AR15, Remington. It probably won't go anywhere, but I'm happy to see them doing it. This is not a weapon designed for self-defense or hunting. It is designed for mass killing. There's a reason that fucker picked to the AR15 over all of the other guns he had in his car. He needed to kill as many as he could, as fast as he could.

Throw everything you got at 'em. If I judge wants to dismiss the case, let that be on his conscience.

This post is ignorant on 3-4 levels. Congrats on surpassing yourself.

by **xsanguine** Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:19 pm

by **kingstonlake** Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:43 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Vlad wrote:They're suing the manufacturer of the AR15, Remington. It probably won't go anywhere, but I'm happy to see them doing it. This is not a weapon designed for self-defense or hunting. It is designed for mass killing. There's a reason that fucker picked to the AR15 over all of the other guns he had in his car. He needed to kill as many as he could, as fast as he could.

Throw everything you got at 'em. If I judge wants to dismiss the case, let that be on his conscience.

This post is ignorant on 3-4 levels. Congrats on surpassing yourself.

Not really. That rifle did what it was designed to do. Fire at a rapid pace. Destroying anything in its range. Ownership of the weapon is not illegal. Doing what he did with it was. But its not unreasonable to state the weapon is a mass destruction weapon.

by Guest Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:50 pm

kingstonlake wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

This post is ignorant on 3-4 levels. Congrats on surpassing yourself.

Not really. That rifle did what it was designed to do. Fire at a rapid pace. Destroying anything in its range. Ownership of the weapon is not illegal. Doing what he did with it was. But its not unreasonable to state the weapon is a mass destruction weapon.

But according Vlad it's not designed for self defense, only mass killing. That's one of the ignorant statements.

by **kingstonlake** Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:54 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

Not really. That rifle did what it was designed to do. Fire at a rapid pace. Destroying anything in its range. Ownership of the weapon is not illegal. Doing what he did with it was. But its not unreasonable to state the weapon is a mass destruction weapon.

But according Vlad it's not designed for self defense, only mass killing. That's one of the ignorant statements.

Well to be fair there are very very few times a rifle is first choice in self defense. At least in this country. potato/potatoe

by **Vlad** Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:05 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

Not really. That rifle did what it was designed to do. Fire at a rapid pace. Destroying anything in its range. Ownership of the weapon is not illegal. Doing what he did with it was. But its not unreasonable to state the weapon is a mass destruction weapon.

But according Vlad it's not designed for self defense, only mass killing. That's one of the ignorant statements.

Depends on what you're defending yourself against, I suppose. If you're one of the paranoid fucks out there who needs to arm his fortress against Obama's invasion, then there simply aren't enough AR15's out there for you. but if you're defending yourself against a more common home invasion, the AR15 is probably too much weapon.

And if you're looking to mow down as many innocent people as you can in a four-minute span, then the AR15 is actually a pretty good choice. It's all about speed/capacity in that situation.

So it just depends, I guess.

by **The_Dude** Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:39 pm

Irrational emotional lefties lol.

Oh and the suit will never see the light of day.

And actually in a confined space like a classroom the AR15 isn't close to the most effective weapon if your goal is to kill as many as quickly as possible.

Not one of your better efforts Vlad.

by **xsanguine** Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:02 pm

Everyone I know that's owned an "assault rifle" uses it at the range shooting at targets.

You guys need to pick better friends, I guess.

by Herbie Green Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:21 pm

You don't know anything about guns. So the Ar-15 is an "assault rifle" whatever. 22 children are of a mere consqequence if you know anything about hunting and the definition of firearms so don't make a fool of yourself

by **The_Dude** Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:29 pm

Herbie Green wrote:You don't know anything about guns. So the Ar-15 is an "assault rifle" whatever. 22 children are of a mere consqequence if you know anything about hunting and the definition of firearms so don't make a fool of yourself

Explain

by **Snake Plissken** Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:35 pm

Vlad wrote:They're suing the manufacturer of the AR15, Remington. It probably won't go anywhere, but I'm happy to see them doing it. This is not a weapon designed for self-defense or hunting. It is designed for mass killing. There's a reason that fucker picked the AR15 over all of the other guns he had in his car. He needed to kill as many as he could, as fast as he could.

Throw everything you got at 'em. If the judge wants to dismiss the case, let that be on his conscience.

Are you really this stupid? I'm curious.

by **Death Roe** Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:39 pm

Vlad wrote:They're suing the manufacturer of the AR15, Remington. It probably won't go anywhere, but I'm happy to see them doing it. This is not a weapon designed for self-defense or hunting. It is designed for mass killing. There's a reason that fucker picked the AR15 over all of the other guns he had in his car. He needed to kill as many as he could, as fast as he could.

Throw everything you got at 'em. If the judge wants to dismiss the case, let that be on his conscience.

As a person who is licensed and can sell firearms, and is a responsible person with the ATF, this is such a stupid post to read. You are truly dumb.

by **The_Dude** Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:39 pm

Snake Plissken wrote:
Vlad wrote:They're suing the manufacturer of the AR15, Remington. It probably won't go anywhere, but I'm happy to see them doing it. This is not a weapon designed for self-defense or hunting. It is designed for mass killing. There's a reason that fucker picked the AR15 over all of the other guns he had in his car. He needed to kill as many as he could, as fast as he could.

Throw everything you got at 'em. If the judge wants to dismiss the case, let that be on his conscience.
Are you really this stupid? I'm curious.

Yeah a lot of the lefties are when it comes to stuff like this.

Remember, they think that creating a gun free zone puts up and invisible fence that doesn't allow guns to cross...that's who you are dealing with.

by **Death Roe** Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:40 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Vlad wrote:They're suing the manufacturer of the AR15, Remington. It probably won't go anywhere, but I'm happy to see them doing it. This is not a weapon designed for self-defense or hunting. It is designed for mass killing. There's a reason that fucker picked to the AR15 over all of the other guns he had in his car. He needed to kill as many as he could, as fast as he could.

Throw everything you got at 'em. If I judge wants to dismiss the case, let that be on his conscience.

This post is ignorant on 3-4 levels. Congrats on surpassing yourself.

He is either really stupid, or just being a major troll.

by Herbie Green Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:44 pm

The_Dude wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:You don't know anything about guns. So the Ar-15 is an "assault rifle" whatever. 22 children are of a mere consqequence if you know anything about hunting and the definition of firearms so don't make a fool of yourself

Explain

I have to defend my party line that mass killings are a necessary "evil".

by **The_Dude** Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:46 pm

Herbie Green wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

Explain

I have to defend my party line that mass killings are a necessary "evil".

huh?

You are losing it brah.

by **Vlad** Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:57 pm

I'm just proud of those families, that's all.

You cute little weekend warriors, you all just enjoy your little guns, ok? Don't worry about the boogy man, because if he ever comes for you, your guns won't help much anyway.

by **Death Roe** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:04 am

Vlad wrote:I'm just proud of those families, that's all.

You cute little weekend warriors, you all just enjoy your little guns, ok? Don't worry about the boogy man, because if he ever comes for you, your guns won't help much anyway.

It's not about having guns. I own a .410 and a 9mm pistol, but hardly use them, just for home defense/standard shooting at the range.

Your post was very ignorant. The gun itself didn't make the decision to shoot the children, which is still horrible. The person who shot them is the one that pulled the trigger, and that's what matters. I understand suing the company out of frustration, but this case will not go anywhere. It's not like the manual said to kill people.

I did background checks for people who wanted those Bushmasters post-Sandy Hook, people were just scared that Obama would make a rash decision and get them banned. He tried, but it didn't work, not surprisingly.

by **xsanguine** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:08 am

Vlad wrote:I'm just proud of those families, that's all.

You cute little weekend warriors, you all just enjoy your little guns, ok? Don't worry about the boogy man, because if he ever comes for you, your guns won't help much anyway.

Your passive aggression is showing, Vlad.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:13 am

You guys know how Vlad operates, right?

by **xsanguine** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:13 am

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:You guys know how Vlad operates, right?

I like how he operates.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:16 am

xsanguine wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:You guys know how Vlad operates, right?

I like how he operates.

Good deal. I'm just here to inform.

by **The_Dude** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:16 am

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:You guys know how Vlad operates, right?

He's a Bob style troll

by **xsanguine** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:17 am

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

I like how he operates.

Good deal. I'm just here to inform.

I'm forever indebted to you, Pylon.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:20 am

xsanguine wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Good deal. I'm just here to inform.

I'm forever indebted to you, Pylon.

Good for the Sandy Hook families! 328670334

by **Vlad** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:23 am

Death Roe wrote:
Vlad wrote:I'm just proud of those families, that's all.

You cute little weekend warriors, you all just enjoy your little guns, ok? Don't worry about the boogy man, because if he ever comes for you, your guns won't help much anyway.

It's not about having guns. I own a .410 and a 9mm pistol, but hardly use them, just for home defense/standard shooting at the range.

Your post was very ignorant. The gun itself didn't make the decision to shoot the children, which is still horrible. The person who shot them is the one that pulled the trigger, and that's what matters. I understand suing the company out of frustration, but this case will not go anywhere. It's not like the manual said to kill people.

I did background checks for people who wanted those Bushmasters post-Sandy Hook, people were just scared that Obama would make a rash decision and get them banned. He tried, but it didn't work, not surprisingly.

So guns don't kill people but people kill people? Is that what you're telling me? Interesting, I've never heard that before.

So boil it all down for me. Why does a common citizen need an AR15 type of weapon? A short, simple answer please, addressing need, not want, not your Constitutional rights...Just tell me why a common citizen needs this type of weapon?

We both know why, don't we? Yes, we do.

by **xsanguine** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:27 am

Vlad wrote: Why does a common citizen need an AR15 type of weapon? A short, simple answer please, addressing need, not want, not your Constitutional rights...Just tell me why a common citizen needs this type of weapon?

They don't.

They don't need AR-15's, Glock 9mm or Red Ryder BB guns.

They don't need a hot wife or a good job or a fast car.

They also don't need fast food, soda, or candy.

They don't need to smoke or do drugs or watch television

And they also don't need to take walks or comb their hair with a brush as opposed to a comb.

Next question.

by **Vlad** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:33 am

xsanguine wrote:
Vlad wrote: Why does a common citizen need an AR15 type of weapon? A short, simple answer please, addressing need, not want, not your Constitutional rights...Just tell me why a common citizen needs this type of weapon?

They don't.

They don't need AR-15's, Glock 9mm or Red Ryder BB guns.

They don't need a hot wife or a good job or a fast car.

They also don't need fast food, soda, or candy.

They don't need to smoke or do drugs or watch television

And they also don't need to take walks or comb their hair with a brush as opposed to a comb.

Next question.

Next question would be rather obvious then: what are the chances that a hot wife or a good job might be used to kill 20 kids in an elementary school? A hot wife, if used as intended, should not be able to do that.

by **xsanguine** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:36 am

Vlad wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

They don't.

They don't need AR-15's, Glock 9mm or Red Ryder BB guns.

They don't need a hot wife or a good job or a fast car.

They also don't need fast food, soda, or candy.

They don't need to smoke or do drugs or watch television

And they also don't need to take walks or comb their hair with a brush as opposed to a comb.

Next question.

Next question would be rather obvious then: what are the chances that a hot wife or a good job might kill 20 kids in an elementary school?

I'm not sure.

Tell me the chances of both.

What's the chance an AR-15 will be used to kill 20 elementary school children?

by Herbie Green Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:37 am

Vlad wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

They don't.

They don't need AR-15's, Glock 9mm or Red Ryder BB guns.

They don't need a hot wife or a good job or a fast car.

They also don't need fast food, soda, or candy.

They don't need to smoke or do drugs or watch television

And they also don't need to take walks or comb their hair with a brush as opposed to a comb.

Next question.

Next question would be rather obvious then: what are the chances that a hot wife or a good job might be used to kill 20 kids in an elementary school? A hot wife, if used as intended, should not be able to do that.

Come on that is besides the point here.

by **Death Roe** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:39 am

Vlad wrote:
Death Roe wrote:

It's not about having guns. I own a .410 and a 9mm pistol, but hardly use them, just for home defense/standard shooting at the range.

Your post was very ignorant. The gun itself didn't make the decision to shoot the children, which is still horrible. The person who shot them is the one that pulled the trigger, and that's what matters. I understand suing the company out of frustration, but this case will not go anywhere. It's not like the manual said to kill people.

I did background checks for people who wanted those Bushmasters post-Sandy Hook, people were just scared that Obama would make a rash decision and get them banned. He tried, but it didn't work, not surprisingly.

So guns don't kill people but people kill people? Is that what you're telling me? Interesting, I've never heard that before.

So boil it all down for me. Why does a common citizen need an AR15 type of weapon? A short, simple answer please, addressing need, not want, not your Constitutional rights...Just tell me why a common citizen needs this type of weapon?

We both know why, don't we? Yes, we do.

Give me some credit on this topic here. I know it's hard for you to do.

People buy those weapons because they are a good plinking gun to take to the range and mess around with. You can't hunt with them. At least in MI. (Unless law changed recently) I shot one a few years ago at a company hunting expo and it was pretty nice.

Ugh, you can't comprehend reading very well. The gun as a weapon/unit, once the trigger is pulled BY A HUMAN BEING making the decision, technically kills someone. But the gun doesn't make the decision.

A common citizen can walk into my old store and buy a Smith and Wesson Governor .500 caliber (biggest pistol I've ever seen), for $1500 plus tax. But again, they don't NEED it. People just WANT stuff to want it.

I'm done now. You clearly won't listen to anyone else over this, so just go to bed old man.

by **Vlad** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:44 am

xsanguine wrote:
Vlad wrote:

Next question would be rather obvious then: what are the chances that a hot wife or a good job might kill 20 kids in an elementary school?

I'm not sure.

Tell me the chances of both.

What's the chance an AR-15 will be used to kill 20 elementary school children?

I know right!?! What a crazy idea! Rapidfire weapons…crowded places…innocent people… Yeah, it could never happen!

You got me dude!

by **xsanguine** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:46 am

Vlad wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

I'm not sure.

Tell me the chances of both.

What's the chance an AR-15 will be used to kill 20 elementary school children?

I know right!?! What a crazy idea! Rapidfire weapons…crowded places…innocent people… Yeah, it could never happen!

You got me dude!

I want to know the chances of both so that I know how to respond to your question.

What are the chances of a hot wife killing 20 elementary school children and then what are the chances an AR-15 will kill 20 elementary school children?

by **CORNER BLITZ** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:51 am

Death Roe wrote:
Vlad wrote:

So guns don't kill people but people kill people? Is that what you're telling me? Interesting, I've never heard that before.

So boil it all down for me. Why does a common citizen need an AR15 type of weapon? A short, simple answer please, addressing need, not want, not your Constitutional rights...Just tell me why a common citizen needs this type of weapon?

We both know why, don't we? Yes, we do.

Give me some credit on this topic here. I know it's hard for you to do.

People buy those weapons because they are a good plinking gun to take to the range and mess around with. You can't hunt with them. At least in MI. (Unless law changed recently) I shot one a few years ago at a company hunting expo and it was pretty nice.

Ugh, you can't comprehend reading very well. The gun as a weapon/unit, once the trigger is pulled BY A HUMAN BEING making the decision, technically kills someone. But the gun doesn't make the decision.

A common citizen can walk into my old store and buy a Smith and Wesson Governor .500 caliber (biggest pistol I've ever seen), for $1500 plus tax. But again, they don't NEED it. People just WANT stuff to want it.

I'm done now. You clearly won't listen to anyone else over this, so just go to bed old man.

"You sell guns and your name is death roe... case closed"

-Vlad

by **Vlad** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:51 am

Death Roe wrote:
Vlad wrote:

So guns don't kill people but people kill people? Is that what you're telling me? Interesting, I've never heard that before.

So boil it all down for me. Why does a common citizen need an AR15 type of weapon? A short, simple answer please, addressing need, not want, not your Constitutional rights...Just tell me why a common citizen needs this type of weapon?

We both know why, don't we? Yes, we do.

Give me some credit on this topic here. I know it's hard for you to do.

People buy those weapons because they are a good plinking gun to take to the range and mess around with.You can't hunt with them. At least in MI. (Unless law changed recently) I shot one a few years ago at a company hunting expo and it was pretty nice.

Ugh, you can't comprehend reading very well. The gun as a weapon/unit, once the trigger is pulled BY A HUMAN BEING making the decision, technically kills someone. But the gun doesn't make the decision.

A common citizen can walk into my old store and buy a Smith and Wesson Governor .500 caliber (biggest pistol I've ever seen), for $1500 plus tax. But again, they don't NEED it. People just WANT stuff to want it.

I'm done now. You clearly won't listen to anyone else over this, so just go to bed old man.

That's it?? That's the reason they want to buy such weapons, so they can "mess around" at a shooting range? That's lamer than even I imagined. That's actually pretty pathetic.

So there isn't going to be any big bang-bang, pow-wow stuff with Obama? This is all about blowing off steam at your local shooting range? What a waste of a perfectly good killing machine!

by **Death Roe** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:52 am

That's honestly why most people buy it. I have sold a few hundred of them over the years.

by **xsanguine** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:53 am

Why would you ask me a question and then refuse to answer?

by **Vlad** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:54 am

xsanguine wrote:
Vlad wrote:

I know right!?! What a crazy idea! Rapidfire weapons…crowded places…innocent people… Yeah, it could never happen!

You got me dude!

I want to know the chances of both so that I know how to respond to your question.

What are the chances of a hot wife killing 20 elementary school children and then what are the chances an AR-15 will kill 20 elementary school children?

I already said you won dude! There is no way in hell that rapidfire weapons could be used to kill innocent people in crowded places. Not in this country. Not in this day and age. Nope.

You've made your point already.

by **xsanguine** Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:56 am

Vlad wrote:
Death Roe wrote:

Give me some credit on this topic here. I know it's hard for you to do.

People buy those weapons because they are a good plinking gun to take to the range and mess around with.You can't hunt with them. At least in MI. (Unless law changed recently) I shot one a few years ago at a company hunting expo and it was pretty nice.

Ugh, you can't comprehend reading very well. The gun as a weapon/unit, once the trigger is pulled BY A HUMAN BEING making the decision, technically kills someone. But the gun doesn't make the decision.

A common citizen can walk into my old store and buy a Smith and Wesson Governor .500 caliber (biggest pistol I've ever seen), for $1500 plus tax. But again, they don't NEED it. People just WANT stuff to want it.

I'm done now. You clearly won't listen to anyone else over this, so just go to bed old man.

That's it?? That's the reason they want to buy such weapons, so they can "mess around" at a shooting range? That's lamer than even I imagined. That's actually pretty pathetic.

So there isn't going to be any big bang-bang, pow-wow stuff with Obama? This is all about blowing off steam at your local shooting range? What a waste of a perfectly good killing machine!

They also come in handy should the government ever decide to commit tyranny against the citizenry. Which is the original intent of the 2nd amendment and also a plausible possibility if you've taken even a casual interest in the history of governments.

I'm not a big Constitutionalist, I'm against the initiation of violence through and through. But it's important to point out.

by Sponsored content