Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 05, 2019

The gunman who killed seven people and injured more than 20 in a shooting rampage around Odessa, Texas, purchased his weapon from a private seller, a transaction that does not require a background check, law enforcement officials told NBC News.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

i wouldn't want to be the one who sold this gun to a mentally ill person.

#1 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-04 11:22 AM | Reply

IMHO Private firearm sales are a loop hole in the gun purchase regulations that must be closed. We are required to do transfer paperwork for our cars; the same principle should be applied to gun transfers from one individual to another.

#2 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-09-04 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

purchased his weapon from a private seller, a transaction that does not require a background check,

That's why background checks need to be universal.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-05 07:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

i wouldn't want to be the one who sold this gun to a mentally ill person.

#1 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-04 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag

There are some that will gladly do it for extra cash.

#4 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-05 07:32 AM | Reply

The Odessa mass murderer wouldn't have passed a background check either and bought his gun from a private seller.

When 87% of Americans - including the overwhelming majority of NRA members - support universal background checks yet nothing is done, politicians need to be sent into retirement starting with McConnell.

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-05 03:34 PM | Reply

Why not do universal background checks on everyone? Not just for guns. For employment, driver's license, bank account, admission to the zoo.... Then we can start deporting Foreign Nationals here illegally and identifying criminals to put in jail.

#6 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-09-05 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#6 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-09-05 05:41 PM

You're doing George Orwell proud.

#7 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2019-09-05 05:59 PM | Reply

Bogey1335, you ought to kick the illegals out of your hospital, perhaps mid-surgery, and then call the police and say illegals are walking around in stolen hospital gowns.

You're truly a credit to your race.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Everyone should have to go through the rigorous process that we do in CA.

If you're in too much of a hurry to wait 10 days for your gun you shouldn't have one in the first place.

Also gun owners should have to pay $.99 per month per firearm in insurance and $.01 fee per bullet so we have a pool of money for shooting victims.

I know mass shooters are statistical outliers with regard to gun owners but the fact of the matter is our population has grown to the point where these anomalies (mass shootings) occur daily.

#9 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-09-05 06:28 PM | Reply

Private firearm sales are a loop hole in the gun purchase regulations ...

Definition of loophole

: a means of escape especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded www.merriam-webster.com

The private party sales exception is not an ambiguity or omission in the text of the statute. It was written into the statute on purpose. It is not a loophole.

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 07:52 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Also gun owners should have to pay $.99 per month per firearm in insurance and $.01 fee per bullet so we have a pool of money for shooting victims.

So, basically, a tax on the exercise of a Constitutional right. Those don't fair well in the courts. Also, do you support a subsidy for the poor who can't afford the tax?

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 08:00 PM | Reply

It is not a loophole.

You're right, it's not a loophole, it's just indefensibly stupid and appears to have enabled mass murder.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-05 08:04 PM | Reply

"You're right, it's not a loophole, it's just indefensibly stupid and appears to have enabled mass murder"

Now that we can trace an actual mass shooting to this loophole...
They still tell us closing it is just too much to ask.
Isn't that something?

I believe the term of art is "collateral damage."
I hope Et_Al will correct me if that's' wrong.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 08:06 PM | Reply

"It was written into the statute on purpose. It is not a loophole."

Those two are not mutually exclusive.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-05 08:09 PM | Reply

"So, basically, a tax on the exercise of a Constitutional right."

Is this really unheard of?
Pretty sure there's still sales tax when you make copies of your Manifesto down at the Kinko's.

(Kinko's is what they used to call FedEx Office, kids.)

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 08:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You could press your own damn shells.

If you really want to.

Also if mass shootings occurred less often those hypothetical taxes could be lifted no problem.

Like it or not these incidents cost money and often happen in locales with less than adequate resources.

#16 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-09-05 08:21 PM | Reply

There are some that will gladly do it for extra cash.

#4 | Posted by Nixon

Capitalism 101 - profit above all else.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-05 08:25 PM | Reply

#14 Read the posted definition.

#12 It may or may not be stupid but that was weighed when the statute was enacted with this specific exception.

Like it or not these incidents cost money ...

Yes, all criminality costs society money. Yet, I don't see a specific tax imposed for the societal costs of exercising First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth or Eighth Amendment rights. Those costs are paid from general revenues. Why should the Second be singled out, is it a lesser right than the others?

#18 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 08:39 PM | Reply

It may or may not be stupid but that was weighed when the statute was enacted with this specific exception.

So what? It was "weighed" by a bunch of compromised hacks who clearly have failed miserably at protecting innocent Americans. Bad policy doesn't get a pass just because legislators "weighed" it.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-05 09:03 PM | Reply

"Yes, all criminality costs society money."

LOL.

Maybe in the sense that society throws resources at prosecuting crimes that don't cost society money, like the kind prosecuted in Lawrence v Texas.

Holy ---- dude, you have drunk deep of the dogma!

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 09:12 PM | Reply

"Why should the Second be singled out, is it a lesser right than the others?"

25 gun deaths a day, 80 if you count suicide is why.
Find me 25 people dying from free speech every day, and we'll talk about what's lesser and what's greater.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 09:15 PM | Reply

25 gun deaths a day, 80 if you count suicide is why.
Find me 25 people dying from free speech every day, and we'll talk about what's lesser and what's greater.

#21 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-05 09:15 P

There are other amendments other than the first and second.

If you suspend the 4th amendment and allow cops to go into anybody's home whenever they want, I guarantee you will be saving a lot more lives than if you suspended the second amendment. Also you would be catching meth labs and other drug dealers which would save lives. You would catch domestic abuse that you wouldn't otherwise find if you had to get a search warrant. You would find stolen goods in people's homes.
This is just a small taste of all the good the country would have if we suspended the 4th amendment.

#22 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 09:21 PM | Reply

Your guarantees aren't worth much.

"This is just a small taste of all the good the country would have if we suspended the 4th amendment."

No mention of the downside of keeping it; the 25 deaths a day, 80 if you count suicides we get thanks to the Second.

Thing is, other modern countries afford their citizens some manner of protection from search and seizure which is roughly consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

No other modern countries afford them the "protection" we extend via the Second Amendment, not even Switzerland, and none have our levels of gun violence.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 09:26 PM | Reply

"No mention of the downside of keeping it; the 25 deaths a day, 80 if you count suicides we get thanks to the Second."

Please don't tell me you are one of those stupid people who think if guns are outlawed, there will be no more gun deaths. Please tell me you aren't one of them.

If you outlaw guns, only the honest people like me won't have them. This will enable the criminal element who, believe it or now would not turn in their guns, to attack an unarmed populace.

You didn't think this out very thoroughly, did you?

And rather than a stupid, "Your guarantees aren't worth much" to rebut my claim that suspending the fourth amendment would save lives, not to mention other criminal activity, please tell me why you think I'm wrong. No snoofy trolling games please

#24 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 09:35 PM | Reply

If you outlaw guns, only the honest people like me won't have them.

There will also be a certain number of people who are too unmotivated or disconnected from society to bother finding an illegal gun. It's BS to say "only" the honest people won't have them.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-05 09:48 PM | Reply

"There will also be a certain number of people who are too unmotivated or disconnected from society to bother finding an illegal gun. It's BS to say "only" the honest people won't have them.

#25 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-0"

Someone motivated enough to turn to a life of crime will be motivated enough to enable it by buying a gun. It's sheer folly to believe otherwise. Even if you are right, there will be a lot of dishonest and mean people with guns that honest people like me won't be able to defend themselves against. Why do proggies want to derive me of the right to protect myself?

#26 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 09:52 PM | Reply

Snoofy, #24, please?

#27 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 09:59 PM | Reply

So what? It was "weighed" by a bunch of compromised hacks ...

S. 49 (99th): Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed by voice vote in the Democratically controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate. www.govtrack.us Plenty of hacks on both sides.

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 10:17 PM | Reply

#28 How is that a response to my post? I said nothing about political parties.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-05 10:19 PM | Reply

#29

It responds to your "compromised hacks" slur. Plenty to go around for everyone.

#30 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 10:29 PM | Reply

#30 Did i ever say Democrats couldn't be compromised hacks? No. So it's not a response. It's also not a response to the larger point that bad policy isn't excused in any way by the fact that some people "weighed" it. It's also not a response to the even larger point that not requiring background checks on private gun sales is indefensibly stupid.

I'm sure you'll find some irrelevant corner of this post to respond to. Have fun.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-05 10:32 PM | Reply

"Please don't tell me you are one of those stupid people who think if guns are outlawed, there will be no more gun deaths."

No more?
Far, far fewer.

Like in Canada, for example.
Or the United Kingdom.
Or Germany.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 10:52 PM | Reply

"#32 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Like in Canada, for example.
Or the United Kingdom.
Or Germany.

#32 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

So you didn't know that these countries were never as fully armed as the US? Um, OK. Scratch that one off to ignorance. We'll move on:

So tell me why you think suspending the 4th amendment won't save lives.

#33 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 10:56 PM | Reply

"So tell me why you think suspending the 4th amendment won't save lives."

I never made that claim.
Nor is it relevant to my claim that suspending the Second Amendment will save lives.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 10:59 PM | Reply

I don't believe outlawing guns is feasible due to the sheer amount disseminated amongst the populace and how ingrained they are in this country.

That being said there's no reason I should be able to buy an insanely-concealable Glock 26 with extended magazine or AR-15`with quick-flip-banana-clips.

Here to get a handgun you must take a test with the weapon you are purchasing to demonstrate proficiency. This should be mandatory for all civilian owned firearms. Bring your shotgun, rifle or revolver to your FFL annually and prove its in good condition and that you can load it and unload it properly.

#35 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-09-05 11:01 PM | Reply

"Nor is it relevant to my claim that suspending the Second Amendment will save lives.

#34 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

No, but it's quite relevant to your post 21 where you said let's talk about what's lesser and greater.

But you know this. You are playing snoofy trolling games again.

#36 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 11:04 PM | Reply

"So you didn't know that these countries were never as fully armed as the US?"

Again, not relevant, so it doesn't even matter if your claim is accurate or made up on the spot.

The reason these countries have fewer gun deaths than the US is they are less permissive of guns than the US.
As a result, they have less gun everything than the US. Less gun suicide, less gun murder, less gun accidents, less gun stores.

Apparently you like societies with more gun deaths, not fewer gun deaths.
I would like to know why.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 11:04 PM | Reply

"I don't believe outlawing guns is feasible due to the sheer amount disseminated amongst the populace and how ingrained they are in this country."

Certainly, not all at once.

I call on news sites like the Drudge Retort to show pictures of the dead bodies after every shooting.

Sort of like the picture of dead Emmett Till helped people reject racism, pictures of 20 blown apart kids at Newtown would help people reject the suicide pact that is the Second Amendment.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 11:06 PM | Reply

"The reason these countries have fewer gun deaths than the US is they are less permissive of guns than the US."

Thanks, Cap'n obvious. And the reason people in Italy have more tomato sauce on their shirts is because they eat more marinara.

#39 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 11:08 PM | Reply

"Thanks, Cap'n obvious."

hey, look. name calling.

#40 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-09-05 11:10 PM | Reply

Also with the annual inspection at your FFL they can red flag you to the ATF if you stumble in there drunk mumbling about the five "joo" bankers or new world order and how they're all out to get you...

#41 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-09-05 11:10 PM | Reply

"Apparently you like societies with more gun deaths, not fewer gun deaths.
I would like to know why.

#37 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Apparently -- no, clearly -- you like to assign false positions. I'd like to know why.

#42 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 11:10 PM | Reply

#31 Your opinion that a private sales exception is bad policy and stupid does not alter the fact that in 1986 Congress didn't see enough bad or stupidity in the bill to even garner a record vote. The consensus was okay, fine, pass it.

Seems that even today not enough bad or stupidity regarding the exception exists to garner an interest in fixing the perceived bad or stupid. There has been some form or another of "universal background check" bills pending since I've been on this blog. There's one or two in the House now that I could live with. They'll probably die in committee as many in the past have done.

So my conclusion is that there is not enough bad or stupid with the exception today to overcome the consensus 30 odd years ago that it ain't so bad or stupid, so just pass it.

#43 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 11:11 PM | Reply

"hey, look. name calling.

#40 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE "

Oh, look. My nightly stalker is back. Everybody notice how he went after me first, but will soon start whining about me feuding as he always does. Night. After night. After night. After night.

Go for it, Alex!

#44 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 11:12 PM | Reply

"nightly stalker"

more name calling.

it's all you have.

#45 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-09-05 11:13 PM | Reply

Here to get a handgun you must take a test with the weapon you are purchasing to demonstrate proficiency. This should be mandatory for all civilian owned firearms. Bring your shotgun, rifle or revolver to your FFL annually and prove its in good condition and that you can load it and unload it properly.

I agree. Where are you?

Most state regs that actually require proficiency qualifications are pretty pathetic. Like you need to be able to load it. Or maybe be able to hit a dinner plate from seven feet seven out of 10 times.

#46 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-05 11:14 PM | Reply

ET_AL

The nature of threat(s) firearms pose has evolved in the last 3 decades.

Gang violence used to be the soup du jour with regard to guns.

"Well they only really hurt each other."

Now, not so much.

#47 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-09-05 11:15 PM | Reply

"#31 Your opinion that a private sales exception is bad policy and stupid does not alter the fact that in 1986 Congress didn't see enough bad or stupidity in the bill to even garner a record vote. The consensus was okay, fine, pass it."

Is this supposed to be an indictment of the 1986 Congress, or Joe's opinion?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 11:17 PM | Reply

#43 Your posts appear to rely on the presumption that legislators are never compromised by special interests and that they are always making the correct decision. A law or state of affairs can be incredibly bad or stupid and Congress can do nothing about it, or do the wrong thing. The subject of this thread is a prime example.

The fact that you refuse to even attempt to argue it is not bad or stupid, and instead hide behind "well the legislature passed it," is proof enough for today that it is indeed bad and stupid.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-05 11:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Redial.

I'm in Los Angeles.

Right next to Burbank - which has its own rules and regulations for firearms. It's a 3 minute drive.

#50 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-09-05 11:17 PM | Reply

#35 & 41| POSTED BY LOSTANGELES

So, apparently, you think the Second Amendment is a lesser right. drudge.com

Thankfully there's federalism.

#51 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 11:20 PM | Reply

"And the reason people in Italy have more tomato sauce on their shirts is because they eat more marinara."

So now we're at a place where you're equating gun violence with stained shirts.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-05 11:21 PM | Reply

""nightly stalker"
more name calling.
it's all you have.

POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE "

It's not name calling if it's objective. And you clearly are stalking me. That makes you a stalker. LOL

I suggest you get over your GDS.

Bye, now stalker! See you tomorrow night for your insatiable dose of goatman.

#53 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 11:24 PM | Reply

"So now we're at a place where you're equating gun violence with stained shirts.

#52 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

I did not equate them. I made an analogy. No more snoofy games for me.

Bye, now!

#54 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-05 11:25 PM | Reply

ET-AL

Thank God for that federal government right?

This discussion has gone One Step Beyond for sure.

#55 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-09-05 11:28 PM | Reply

#49 My posts rely on reality, as I stated at 43, rather than what you think or presume I mean. That I don't crawl in the mud with you to rehash the arguments I've had on this issue, that are too numerous to count, only means that you are a day late and a dollar short. Nothing more.

I'm not a fan of the exception which revolves around the meaning of "in the business." It's too subjective and, imo, should be more objective i.e. sell more than x in a year you're "in the business." The Obama Administration tightened the evaluation criteria a little and I said that's a good thing. I could also live with the pending House bills that attempt to impose universal background checks but also attempt to recognize limited situations where a background check is impractical, if not, nonsensical.

#56 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 11:43 PM | Reply

#55 No. Try looking up federalism i.e. I'm in Texas and don't have to put up with ineffective and invasive CA gun control.

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-05 11:47 PM | Reply

"I did not equate them. I made an analogy."

Sure.
"Made an analogy."

Gun violence
Stained shirts.
One of these bothers me more than the other.

I'd ban stained shirts if they killed 25 people a day, 80 if you count suicides.

"But they'd just find a way to kill themselves with stained underpants!"
--Goatman

Nothing more to be said.
Have a nice evening.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-06 12:25 AM | Reply

I'm not a fan

Uh huh. That's why you spend your time arguing with someone who said it's bad policy. Sounds like something someone who's not a fan would do.

#59 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-06 04:10 AM | Reply

Uh huh. That's why ...

You fail, again. I stated my position on this issue. Your delusions about that position notwithstanding.

#60 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-06 04:26 AM | Reply

Uh huh. That's why ...

You fail, again. I stated my position on this issue. Your delusions about that position notwithstanding.

#61 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-06 04:26 AM | Reply

Everybody notice how he went after me first, but will soon start whining about me feuding as he always does. Night. After night. After night. After night.
Go for it, Alex!

#44 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-09-05 11:12 PM | FLAG:

always the victim.

#62 | Posted by cjk85 at 2019-09-06 03:49 PM | Reply

"always the victim.

#62 | POSTED BY CJK85 "

Nope. Just pointing out facts since stupid lefties keep claiming I'm the one derailing threads and starting fights.

Sorry if you have to resort to lame accusations because of an inc9nvenient truth.

#63 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-06 03:59 PM | Reply

That's why background checks need to be universal.
#3 | Posted by Nixon

Take a deep breath and explain to all of us just exactly how that would work. If anyone can do a check, would that stop me from having a background check on somebody I want to hire to mow my lawn?

#64 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-06 04:36 PM | Reply

"would that stop me from having a background check on somebody I want to hire to mow my lawn?

#64 | POSTED BY SNIPER "

Actually, you can for a nominal fee, $5 - $10. Or get a year subscription to one of those investigative websites for a few bucks more. I used one once to check on a potential renter. It came back with a lot of information, even more than I expected like relatives' names, former addresses, etc.

#65 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-06 05:05 PM | Reply

Sniper is so clueless about how the world actually works. The thought that his vote cancels out that of a person with a functioning brain makes me cringe.

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-06 05:15 PM | Reply

"If anyone can do a check, would that stop me from having a background check on somebody I want to hire to mow my lawn?"

You mean you didn't already check if he's a citizen?

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-06 05:24 PM | Reply

The last Texan I saw with a gun broke his own nose by scoping himself. I was all like WTF???

Texans suck at guns.

#68 | Posted by horstngraben at 2019-09-07 01:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Help, daddy government, please, we need more regulations always and forever because the ones we have aren't working. We need someone to grab all the guns.
t. leftists

#69 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-09-07 04:15 AM | Reply

We are required to do transfer paperwork for our cars; the same principle should be applied to gun transfers from one individual to another.
#2 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-09-04 12:53 PM

That is false.
I have motor vehicles, cars and otherwise, that do not carry a title. They also are not required to carry a title. Titling a vehicle is my option, not the governments.
Also, any titling that does happen is between me and my state. Federal government has no place in that.
Eventually people should learn that comparing cars to guns is always going to be a losing fight for the 'less rights' brigade.

#70 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-07 09:55 AM | Reply

Here to get a handgun you must take a test with the weapon you are purchasing to demonstrate proficiency. This should be mandatory for all civilian owned firearms. Bring your shotgun, rifle or revolver to your FFL annually and prove its in good condition and that you can load it and unload it properly.
#35 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2019-09-05 11:01 PM

Make sure to bring your voter registration card so you can demonstrate your knowledge of the candidates and subjects up for vote. Prove you have taken the time to gain at least a passing familiarity with the topics and the basis for them
Be sure also to bring any speech or writings along so it can be reviewed be the government to ensure it is in good, reasonable condition and not slander.

I get that you want to impose restrictions on people making use of their rights, but some of us are opposed to that. When you gather enough people (and more importantly - states) who support your side, make the amendment and we'll move forward. Until then, stop trying to enforce your beliefs on those who enjoy their rights as enumerated.

#71 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-07 10:18 AM | Reply

If there is the motive of money or ideology involved, what ever is wanted can be acquired. Any machine shop can make a firearm. The Israelis made the Uzi starting in 1947 when the Brits outlawed the import of weapons. Outlawing something, accomplishes nothing so long as their is a demand.

#72 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-07 11:11 AM | Reply

#72 Another moron ignorant of the fact that many mass shooters are profoundly depressed, socially stunted, and without the means, energy or guts to go out and acquire an illegal gun. If an assault weapons ban imposes enough of a burden to stop ONE of these people from getting an AR-15 i say it was worth it.

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-07 11:22 AM | Reply

#73 | Posted by JOE The vast majority of homicides are committed with hand guns, not rifles. So tell me the difference between a Rutger Mini 14 and a AR15? Same ammo, same capacities, with the exception one usually has a wooden stock and the other is a scary "black gun".

#74 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-07 11:29 AM | Reply

The vast majority of homicides are committed with hand guns, not rifles.

Ok, let's outlaw those too.

So tell me the difference between a Rutger Mini 14 and a AR15?

One can easily murder 200 people before the cops show up, the other can't Any other dumb questions?

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-07 12:19 PM | Reply

#75 | Posted by JOE, How ignorant are you? Most mass shootings are committed with pistols, not AR15s. At this moment I possess 7, 30 round magazines for my Mini 14. That is 210 rounds. It is semi-automatic and fires a .223, same as the AR15.

#76 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-07 12:31 PM | Reply

#75 | Posted by JOE, Yea, let's make 100 million people in this country criminals because they will refuse to give up their right to self defense. The reason we have a first amendment is because we have a second amendment.

#77 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-07 03:37 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort