Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jason Alexander’s amazing gun rant ("ban assault weapons")
Salon.com ^ | Jason Alexander

Posted on 07/23/2012 9:57:19 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed

What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality....

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims....

(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: Beelzebubba

Shrinkage


21 posted on 07/23/2012 10:17:50 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Hey Costanza! When did you stop doing the opposite of what your instincts tell you to do? Go back to doing it.


22 posted on 07/23/2012 10:19:02 AM PDT by crosshairs (America: Once a land of the free. Still the home of the brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

The M-16, military half-brother to the civilian AR-15, was not designed to kill. It’s design is to injure and maim. The theory is that an injured enemy will take out the effectiveness of two others to care for him..................


23 posted on 07/23/2012 10:19:44 AM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

So much for his Guest spot on Sons of Guns.

Hey Jason, if you want my AR-15, come on over and try to take it.

Oh that’s right, you just Support and Vote for people that will use the power of the State to take them. Of course that is the real reason we own the Guns in the first place.


24 posted on 07/23/2012 10:22:52 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Confucius say, short note better than long memory....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

The gun control crowd has latched on to the AR-15....because it sounds so ‘machine gunesque’.

They seem to have forgotten the use of a shotgun...and by Alexander’s own false litmus test (use for hunting and sport), I can think of no other weapon that meets this criteria more. And, quite frankly, most hardened gun control advocates will ‘allow’ a shotgun.

Alexander also seems to forget that this maniac made bombs and put them in his apartment...despite federal laws against making bombs. No matter what the laws are, nuts like this will find a way.


25 posted on 07/23/2012 10:22:59 AM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
An AR-15 fires farther and more accurately than a hunting rifle?

How stupid IS this guy? Or maybe I should say, ignorant.

26 posted on 07/23/2012 10:24:15 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Jason:
2010 homicides: 12,272

Not 100,000 you moron.


27 posted on 07/23/2012 10:24:35 AM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbobfoster
does not hold more rounds than any other magazine fed rifle

I fully support 2nd Amendment rights. But playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, critics will seize on the perp's 100-round magazine for the AR to support their gun-grab argument. I own a shotgun and several rifles but have been away from active shooting sports for some years. Are magazines of that capacity available for magazine-fed semi-auto sporting rifles? I simply don't know but rather doubt it.

28 posted on 07/23/2012 10:27:11 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Jason Alexander was born in New Jersey and has an estimated net worth of $75 million dollars

29 posted on 07/23/2012 10:28:16 AM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who?

From libtard tyrants who want to establish a system of statism and socialism.

30 posted on 07/23/2012 10:30:02 AM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Not gasoline, they would just make “fire” illegal.

Problem solved.


31 posted on 07/23/2012 10:32:13 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Confucius say, short note better than long memory....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“The M-16, military half-brother to the civilian AR-15, was not designed to kill. It’s design is to injure and maim. The theory is that an injured enemy will take out the effectiveness of two others to care for him..................”

I would rather face a guy with a an AR-15 than a guy with a Remington 700 chambered in .308. Or any other caliber for that matter.

The number I have heard is that a wounded soldier requires 7 people, a dead soldier none.


32 posted on 07/23/2012 10:32:32 AM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
So when did Jason Alexander become a firearms expert?

Jason Alexander - Still stuck on stupid after all these years.

33 posted on 07/23/2012 10:33:39 AM PDT by paulcissa (The first requirement of Liberalism is to stand on your head and tell the world they're upside down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Slip back into obscurity Jason, when we want any crap out of you we’ll squeeze your head.


34 posted on 07/23/2012 10:34:21 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve?

We don't need to justify constitutional rights.

Most especially not to poorly informed, half crazy, hypocritical left wingers.

And Not All Of Them Work For The Government


35 posted on 07/23/2012 10:34:54 AM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
100 round "drum magazines" are available, but they're expensive, often not very reliable, and hanging all that extra weight from your rifle is going to make it less maneuverable. In this case, it's probably a good thing the shooter used one.
36 posted on 07/23/2012 10:35:08 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Mr. Alexander, in addition to your exposition on the 2nd Amenedment....
I would respectfully refer you to the following [recent] SCOTUS decisions:

************

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home.

***************

McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)
Was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states.

The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

***********

Soooo...... Mr. A....

Take all the immediate emotion and sorrow surrounding the Aurora "Batman massacre" out of the larger construct of legal argument...

Let's talk it over.

37 posted on 07/23/2012 10:40:41 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

I was counting the two immediate enemy that would have to carry him. If you include medics and other medical and support personnel, yeah, I can see 7 or more........either way, the enemy is diminished in effectiveness.......


38 posted on 07/23/2012 10:43:23 AM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Mr. Alexander has good reason for anxiety about his “gun.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cUNNKzj_Nc


39 posted on 07/23/2012 10:43:53 AM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“ALL weapons are assault weapons. That’s why they are called ‘weapons’”

Anything can be considered a weapon, an SUV, stick, rock, frying pan, screwdriver, hammer, pencil or the common blunt
object. If used as weapon to “assault”, then yes any thing becomes an assault weapon.

So tired of morons classifying certain guns as assault weapon, a gun is an inanimate object and does not think or perform actions.

The thing I still do not understand, how did the media get all the info on the alleged shooter so fast? We have a POTUS and we still question his background, yet crickets! No guns are not the problem, the media, stupid celebrities and evil people are the problem.


40 posted on 07/23/2012 10:47:52 AM PDT by Fully Awake DAV (Navy Vet when homosexuality was not tolerated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson