How you like that dem leader now?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289037-senate-gun-bill-wont-include-assault-weapons-ban

"Bipartisanship"

 

I've never liked Reid all that much.

But not all Dems want to take your guns. Even your AR-15s. Not enough votes, no bill. That's the way it works.

Reid sold out...big surprise. His claim that he didn't have the votes is pathetic. If I were senate leader, I'd bring the bill anyhow. Make my fellow senators vote on it..and go on record as a Yes or No vote. I hate the practice of congressional leaders of only bringing legislation to the floor when they like the outcome. That is the opposite of transparency.My philosophy is make the members go on record in support of the bill or not. Stop providing political cover for cowards.

Or, as the president put it: "They deserve a vote."

This post has been removed.

In response to Newtster's comment:

And Bush/Cheney

Hasn't Lady Di Fi been strangley silent

When all the politicians who are against the ban meet the Lord I'm sure all of the Little Angels from Sandy Hook will be seated at the Lord's right hand and He will demand that those politicians answer why they were against the assault weapon ban before he cast them into the Fiery Abyss !

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

Starting with Reid, right?

"It deserves a vote"

Tough, it ain't getting one

 

 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Starting with Reid ...

and it does deserves a vote .

Remember the two scenes in the movie "Braveheart"?  When Wallace looks back and the clan chieftans are turning their horses away.  Or when the Robert the Bruce's helmet comes off.

Hopefully, Sen. Reid got a huge quid pro quo, and was not just being his old quisling self.

Because, borrowing from the large vocabulary coming from that part of our culture, "he took one".

In response to miscricket's comment:

Well said and shows character.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Even your AR-15's? lol

AR-15's while they look menacing are a small caliber weapon and certainly not as lethal close range as many other weapons. It is the boogy gun of the day for anti-gun zealots though.

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

I suppose that's why the military uses them. On semi-auto.

 

 

 

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

The military uses them because they are now (not so much before) very reliable and accurate at distances. They are also light weight and easier to pack ammo for.

Its is not because of their knock down power or because they are the most lethal in close combat!!

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

More or less completely disintegrated the victim's soldier in a case I've seen, from 10-15 feet at that.

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

If the military was so concerned with knock down power then they would have stayed with the .45 1911's. Instead they adopted the Baretta 9mm

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Hey mate, no expert I, but my brother-in-law, says AR's are toys, and anyone who gives a soldier one of those, should be shot - not sure, but, he is a SEAL>

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

The AR-15 is an M16 in the military. It just has a full auto setting there. Have I lost my mind, or isn't the M16 the standard issue military rifle - ever since Vietnam? Wiki says they started switching to the M4 carbine in 2010.

(Both the M16 and M4, it might be noted, derive from the AR-15).

 

As I understand it, SEALs are supposed to be masters of using precisely the amount of force necessary in a given situation. Perhaps that has something to do with calling a toy. (Too much force for most SEAL situations ???)

 

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Hey mate, no expert I, but my brother-in-law, says AR's are toys, and anyone who gives a soldier one of those, should be shot - not sure, but, he is a SEAL>

The AR-15 is an M16 in the military. It just has a full auto setting there. Have I lost my mind, or isn't the M16 the standard issue military rifle - ever since Vietnam? Wiki says they started switching to the M4 carbine in 2010.

(Both the M16 and M4, it might be noted, derive from the AR-15). 

As I understand it, SEALs are supposed to be masters of using precisely the amount of force necessary in a given situation. Perhaps that has something to do with calling a toy. (Too much force for most SEAL situations ???) 

[QUOTE] 

Too much force LOL

 

The military uses rifles to pin down enemy so that air support can take them out some times and their intention is NOT to use the AR-15 as their most lethal weapon. RPG's, tanks, air support are what most of the enemy is neutralized with.

They do not want to get in a rifle fight with our technology and fire power.

The AR -15 is light weight accurate and dependable for it needs to do.

The armchair generals are out with all of their bunting today....

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

We aren't military guys. I'm going with what I can source from credible materials. I doubt the military would give its solders M16s (which are, again, AR-15s with a full auto setting possible) if they're lightweight no-good crap only useful for scaring people who don't know better.

As for rifle tactics, I'll take that from a military guy or credible source, not you. But you might note that an awful lot of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was close quarters rifle fights - raids, city battles, and their fallouts.

How about we implore greg to check in with the feller and see what his "toy" remark meant?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Lol

I certainly never said it was "lightweight no-good crap only useful for scaring people who don't know better"

Ok lets assume "an awful lot of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was close quarters rifle fights - raids, city battles, and their fallouts"

I contend that a vast majority of casualties from all this fighting was from air support and other explosives tanks, RPG's etc. NOT AR-15. I would also contend that alot of the wounded we captured were wounded by small arms like AR-15's.

You can have Greg clarrify with his SEAL brother in law but, I am confident I know what he meant; I ran with a lot of SEALs bck in the 80's through the Phillipines, western pacific and far east

 

 

here's the real question: 

Smith and Wesson M&P 15, Stag 3, or Sig M400???  leaning towards the Stag 3....