It took some 45 minutes for all the marchers who started at Madison Park to fill into the Common, through a single entrance and past a BPD SWAT vehicle to join the thousands of people already waiting for them for a rally for gun control, against the NRA and against the bloodshed that happens time and time again - not just at high schools in well off towns, but in the streets of Roxbury, where Tarek Mroue was shot to death in a road-rage incident.
Leonor Muñoz, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., took to the stage along Beacon Street to recount the day - as did her sister, Beca, a Northeastern student to whom she sent a text as gunfire echoed in the hallways.
Leonor Muñoz struggled as she recalled the sound of an armored cop knocking on her classroom door to escort her and her fellow students to safety - and how she collapsed the next morning when her father knocked on her door to wake her up. I thought it was happening again!" she said, adding, "my trauma isn't going away, and neither are we!"
Marchers and allies filled the field along Beacon and Charles streets (click on photo for a larger version):
The marchers have arrived in the Boston commons! #marchforourlives #Boston @AMarch4OurLives @BostonTweet @universalhub pic.twitter.com/QdVLTT8C0G
— Luisa LaSalle (@llasalle14) March 24, 2018
The marchers entering the Common:
At least one duck over in the Public Garden joined in, as Catboston shows us:
A small band of gun lovers stood halfway up the hill to the Soldiers and Sailors Monument, surrounded by a ring of Boston, State and BU cops - and members of Veterans for Peace. Whenever they tried to make a point with their bullhorn, they were drowned out by bystanders going "Blah, blah, blah!" They left during the first speech.
Stop scapegoating the mentally ill:
Pilotblock photographed the 100 or so people waiting at Harriet Tubman Park in the South End to join the march:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Interesting point; but that
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 7:06pm
Interesting point; but that apparently required 8 people, acting in concert.
"Me too" oops, wrong movement, "Enough! Never Again."
By Anonymous
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 12:14am
duplicate
By Anonymous
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 12:14am
.
In your own words
By whyaduck
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 10:37am
"If a private citizen of a country cannot understand the founding document of his country at face value, then that country is not subject to the rule of law, it is subject to the rule of the mob.
We are subject to the rule of law, therefore the Constitution must be comprehensible to the average citizen and what it says must be identical with what it means.
Try again, comrade. You're getting colder, not warmer. Believe it or not, you actually had a stronger "argument" accusing me of being a murderer than you did suggesting that only the small number of wealthy people who pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a law degree are qualified to tell the rest of us how to live."
If the document is understandable by the private citizens of this country and "comprehensible to the average citizen", as you state, then it is very reasonable to think that the march organizers' also had no trouble interpreting the 2nd amendment, my friend.
Because people never lie
By Roman
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 11:57am
And they never convince themselves of their own lies.
And they certainly never do it if motivated by powerful emotions.
Rule of law is when the law means what it says. Rule of the mob is when the law means what 50%+1 feel it should mean, regardless of what it says. The number can be less than 50% if the mob does what mobs do, which is to try to intimidate with numbers that don't actually add up to 50%+1.
We are confronted
By Anonymous
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 8:23pm
“We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there "is" such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”
And what well-regulated militia do you belong to?
By CopleyScott17
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 5:02pm
Oh, right, you gun nuts like to ignore that part.
Not ignore
By capecoddah
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 5:10pm
Not ignore, just kinda pay less attention to it than the part that says:
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
That part is so beautiful in it's righteous empowerment. Militia talk is okay but rights are fucking awesome.
Constitution time!
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 5:15pm
Where does it say that it's only the militiamen's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed? I look where it would say that and I see "the people" instead of "militiamen." Maybe I have a rare form of dyslexia that makes me see "the people" instead of "militiamen" but if I did, I'd have a pretty hard time typing this out, so I conclude that it really does say "the people" in there.
Question
By anon
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 5:25pm
Where did you get your law degree?
How well versed are you on legal interpretation?
I thought so.
See above
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 6:25pm
You don't want to live in a country where the laws don't mean what they say and don't say what they mean. Fortunately we don't live in such a place, we live in the United States, which has a centuries-old tradition of the rule of law and not rule of the mob, junta, or cabal, or smoke-filled back room.
Hmmm
By anon
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 6:44pm
Seems to me it's the smoke-filled back room that keeps the AR-15 on sale at your local Walmart in most states. Who gives a shit if children are dying; gotta make that $! This is America, after all.
People are dying!
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 7:42pm
because we don't jail raving lunatics when we have the chance.
Sometimes they use AR-15s. Frequently they use knives and their own two hands.
Show me
By anon
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 9:01pm
What these people could have been jailed for before they entered school buildings with their rifle sights set on students.
Oh right, that's usually the first violent crime they commit.
Well...no not always, and nearly never are there no indicators
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 11:28pm
Parkland shooter had the cops called on him quite a few times for violent behavior.
Texas church shooter had an assault conviction on his record that the Air Force failed to put into NICS when it discharged him.
Washington Navy Yard shooter had been hearing voices and had repeatedly sought psychiatric help only to be cut loose.
Winchester library stabber had had the cops called on him a number of times for violent behavior.
Ft. Hood shooter had been raving about jihad for a long time in his papers and reports and was just kicked upstairs because no one knew how to deal with him without putting his own career on the chopping block for islamophobia (remember folks, this was back in the Obama days).
80% of the guns used in mass murder were obtained legally.
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 11:29am
What ever other factors that exist, This fact shows that that changing the law will change the behavior.
That's a misleading statistic
By Roman
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 12:02pm
Cruz got his gun "legally" because all the shit that he did wasn't reported (or wasn't reportable) into NICS. If his violent behavior as a juvenile were reportable, then he wouldn't have been able to get his gun "legally" without changing any of the relevant laws.
Texas church shooter...same deal. More egregious since he was an adult when he got that assault conviction on his record. Just the parallel legal system of the military didn't click with the civilian legal system the way it was legally mandated to. Law didn't need to change, just needed to be enforced.
Navy yard...dude was hearing voices and kept going to doctors to ask for help.
Adam Lanza used a weapon that was technically obtained legally. Just not by him. Storage requirements in Connecticut may not have been as strict as those in Mass are now, but that's working around the edges.
The list goes on.
No, its a fact
By anon
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 12:20pm
You seem to have serious problems with facts you don't like being "misleading" or "cherrypicking". One more time and you get the Inigo Montoya meme.
missing the point
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 3:42pm
There is an argument that asserts that gun control only restricts law abiding citizens, and therefore gun control doesn't prevent crime. But in fact when if mass murderers obey the while they are obtaining the weapon, then changing the law can change their behavior.
No, my point is the law as written is not being enforced
By Roman
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 4:04pm
Thus we do not necessarily need new laws. What we need to do is to enforce the existing laws rigorously so that people who we see in retrospect are already disqualified from owning and purchasing firearms cannot be doing so in a way that is only "legal" because law enforcement fails to keep track of banned individuals' efforts to obtain weapons.
I'll make a car analogy.
If you run a red light, it's illegal whether you get a ticket or not. You can't say what you did was legal because you weren't caught. Thus if you want to discourage people from running red lights, you don't need to pass a new law making it extra illegal. What you do need to do is pay for cameras or cops to catch the illegal behavior and punish it.
Where exactly are we disagreeing?
"The irony is that some of
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 03/27/2018 - 11:26am
"The irony is that some of the laws these advocates claimed should be enforced more vigorously were designed to be unenforceable. "
from "more guns or more enforcement" Anthony Braga
When leaders attempt to enforce existing laws more rigorously they are attacked.
You can't kill
By anon
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 9:05pm
17 people in a handful of minutes with a knife. Not easily, anyways.
It's a lot easier with a weapon of modern war.
For certain values of modern
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 11:31pm
A Winchester repeating rifle vintage 1866 with a 15 round magazine can do plenty of damage in a short amount of time.
How many Winchester repeating rifle massacres have there been?
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 7:45am
You know, not including buffalo?
Exactly.
Plenty of non-buffalo Winchester rifle massacres
By another anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 3:19pm
Plenty of Native American women and children slaughtered too.
But the AR-15 is your go-to fir shooting up a school these days.
Maybe the gun nuts can tell you why. Does it just look cool? Grab a selfie with it before you mass-murder children?
Roman? Can you explain the appeal?
Not really
By Roman
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 4:01pm
I can't explain the appeal of mass murder.
I can't explain the appeal of selling more poison to drug addicts either.
There's lots of immoral behavior I can't see the appeal of. Because I'm a normal person.
Not many
By dmcboston
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 5:01pm
"How many Winchester repeating rifle massacres have there been?" A bunch. Oh, you mean in the modern era, you know, white people.
Not many.
Probably for the same reason that there aren't too many DUI crashes involving Rolls Royce Phantoms.
And how long does it take to load a Winchester '66?
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 12:50pm
This example is a stretch to the point of being ludicrous.
So you can fire off 15 rounds in 7 seconds. Now what? The 1866 you specify did not come with a removable magazine. Detachable box magazines didn't arrive until 1888. So you sit there with a box of loose ammunition, pushing bullets into the built-in magazine, while everyone else waits for you?
This is getting stupid.
Stupid how?
By Roman
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 4:04pm
You're just arguing around the edges here.
The equipment y'all seem to think is necessary to carry out a mass shooting has been around for over a century. Nothing about an AR-15 makes it any more dangerous than anything that's been around for over a century or more.
Sigh.
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 8:38pm
Sigh.
The '66 may not be inherently more dangerous for 15 rounds (though type of ammunition is a consideration) but over the course of 6 minutes and 20 seconds, including reload cycles, there is an obvious difference. IF one considers the performance of the firearm, over the entire course an encounter, yes, the AR-15 is more dangerous than a Winchester from 1866 or an M1903 rifle from 1918.
Some of characteristics that are defined in law and which gun-enthusiasts sometimes seem to dismiss as cosmetic, and only making the gun "scary looking", are some of the very characteristics that make differences in cumulative rate of fire, accuracy, and damage.
The current context is Parkland. Single shooter. 6 minutes 20 seconds. 17 people dead and 14 injured.
How well versed are you on
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 1:49pm
It really isn't worth the time and effort...
By CopleyScott17
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 5:26pm
...to try to explain English to the willfully obtuse. Luckily, the school kids who demonstrated today have a better grasp of fundamental principles than you do.
But, hey, MAGA your heart out, dude.
Come on
By capecoddah
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 5:43pm
First I got some lady holding a dick sign up trying to change minds, and now I got some poster trying to convince me of something so simple that it is "not worth" time and effort to explain it.
You are right. It is not worth it. I can clearly see that. (Maybe you should alert Congress to your unworthy genius).
This is lamer than the pussy hat parade(100,000 hat marchers). But a little more amusing than the safety pin movement (140,000 pin wearers).
Aw
By anon
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 6:46pm
Scared paranoid dude is scared and paranoid.
Wahhhh!
Oh, hi.
By dmcboston
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 3:02am
That added to the conversation...in your head.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/5OWkXBZ.jpg[/img]
I see no scared paranoid dude. I just see someone incapable of adding to the conversation.
You.
Tell me how many people were killed by the Austin Texas bomber? I'll bet you can kill a lot more people with a bomb than with a rifle.
Happens in the Middle East all the time.
Sounds dangerous
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 7:21am
That must be why
It's a good thing for us that the NBA is a basketball thing, or there'd be a lot more bombs about.
That is so racist dude. WTF?
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 9:34am
That is so racist dude. WTF?
I have the feeling
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 12:05pm
You didn't get something.
NBA =/= National Bomb Association
If we had one of those, things would be worse
It is very sad how NRA toy soldiers feel --
By CopleyScott17
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 6:02am
or pretend to feel -- so threatened by their government. But it's sorta precious that they think backyard bunkers full of weapons and ramen noodles will save them.
Ramen noodles have saved many.
By dmcboston
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 5:06pm
Jes' sayin'.
Not the dried ones
By anon
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 9:13am
Too much salt, and no nutrition.
You know, this reply sounds
By Tom Martell
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 7:17pm
You know, this reply sounds suspiciously like the temper tantrum you are accusing pretty much everyone who disagrees with you of having.
You type well enough that I can only assume you have a thorough grasp of English grammar, so one should not have to remind you that the participle phrase before the comma there is intended to add meaning to the rest of the sentence.
In other words, the "people" have the right to be armed to form militias in order to secure a state free of government tyranny. If you are a champion of a strict reading of the text (ie, as you say, laws that say what they mean), then it seems fairly straightforward to me what the meaning is here.
"Sophistry" indeed.
A strict reading
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 7:31pm
of the 2nd Amendment in concert with the 10th Amendment which specifically prohibits the federal government from exercising powers it is not explicitly granted means that just because the right to form a citizen's militia is enumerated does not make it the exclusive reason for gun ownership.
As in, "You have a right to join a well-regulated militia, and that is one reason the state cannot take your guns away."
Well, that certainly sounds
By Tom Martell
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 7:54pm
Well, that certainly sounds like you are conceding the intention of the 2nd amendment, and are therefore not arguing for broad gun ownership on the specific basis of that amendment, but rather the 10th amendment's prevention of federal government overreach.
That's a slightly better argument in my opinion, however the 10th in this case would really just allow for state laws to trump federal ones. (And in practice, it doesn't always work that way. Rarely do I see gun advocates bothered by the federal override of states' drug laws - for consistencies sake, they ought to)
And of course, there's that whole "the people" phrase in there again. Would a massive movement of people calling for such laws count? If voters in November hypothetically show massive support for pro-gun control candidates, would that satisfy you?
I don't believe I'm conceding at all
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 11:38pm
Justice Scalia's Heller decision lays out the historical grounds for reading the intent of the second Amendment at face value.
The 10th by itself would allow restrictions by the states, except for the bit where it delegates rights to people. It's ambiguous and was until the 14th was ratified and explicitly disallowed states to deny to their citizens rights that the federal government is not empowered to deny.
As for your last point: no. I would not be satisfied unless and until those elections put enough people in enough places into power to ratify an amendment to repeal or amend 2A. The point of having a Constitution separate from laws and elections is to shield the system of government from the fleeting passions of the day. Even if (especially if) that day happens to be an election day.
Perhaps
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 6:53am
In concert with the 10th amendment, the 2nd amendment means that the federal government can't prevent you from bearing arms as part of a militia in order to defend your state. The power to limit your access to weaponry thus belongs to the state, not the federal government. If your state doesn't need you in their militia and would rather you didn't bear arms, your state can make you give them up.
At the founding of the nation, the concept was that the US would not have a standing army at all, and that the organized state militias would provide for the nation's defense. The states were worried about the federal government overthrowing them if it had an army and they didn't have militias.
The concept of a militia in America has undergone significant change in meaning and in usage, which can be tracked through the law. In the Articles of Confederation, each state was required to "always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered..." The Militia Act of 1792 determined that the militia consisted of "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45, all of whom would be enrolled, and required each militiaman to supply his own arms.
Over the following decades, it became clear that the state militia system would be insufficient to protect the nation (the militiamen tended to drift homewards when harvest season came), and the small standing army that began with the Legion of the United States in 1791 was steadily expanded. The War of 1812 was a very poor showing for the militias - they let our capital be burned down - and it was the regular Army that won the war. Over the next few decades and several wars the militias decayed as the federal army became larger and more powerful.
The Militia Act of 1903 established the National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves. Some states, such as Massachusetts, maintain State Defense Forces or State Guards, which are not part of the National Guard, and are under the command of the Governor. But the state retains the authority under the constitution to determine who can bear arms and where they can keep them.
But the state retains the
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 8:09am
No it doesn't. Everything changed with the 14 Amendment and incorporation. The "shall not be infringed" applies to the federal government and the states.
Everything didn't change
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 12:20pm
The second amendment guarantees that the federal government will not infringe on arms ownership, but that it is left to the states to do so.
The fourteenth guarantees that no state can make laws abridging the rights of that state's citizens as granted by the federal government.
If gun ownership was not a privilege extended and governed by the federal government, then states' continued governance of such ownership does not abridge a federally guaranteed privilege.
Per US vs Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
Nothing you said is relevant
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 3:02pm
Nothing you said is relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the...
"...has no other effect than to restrict the powers..."
By dmcboston
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 5:10pm
You might want to re-read Heller. Or McDonald. Gun ownership is a right that cannot be abridged without good cause.
Sort of
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 5:38pm
The Supreme Court decision in Cruikshank affirmed the law of the land for a hundred years, until a band of robed radicals started rewriting the Constitution from the bench.
Heller and McDonald were recent, drastic changes to American law and tradition, but they can be overturned later, if our country decides to move back towards the original meaning of the Constitution and states’ rights.
Poor understanding
By capecoddah
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 5:47pm
Constitutional rights are not granted by the federal government.
That is disgusting.
Those rights are inherent.
inherent to what?
By Anonymous
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 12:06am
I'll answer that. They are inherent to the US Constitution, nothing more and nothing less. If you say "but the authors of the Constitution say the rights are god-given," I agree but what does that mean? It means they are human rights as a birthright and as a right of citizenship and almost always as a right of being in sovereign US territory. That is all.
Roman,
By whyaduck
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 10:50am
The sentence's context that you cite is thus: The "people" meant a "well regulated militia".
And in regards to DC vs Heller:
"The Court also made clear that the right was by no means unlimited, and that it was subject to an array of legal restrictions, including: “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The Court also said that certain types of especially powerful weapons might be subject to regulation, along with allowing laws regarding the safe storage of firearms.
Further, the Court referred repeatedly to gun laws that had existed earlier in American history as a justification for allowing similar contemporary laws, even though the court, by
its own admission, did not undertake its own “exhaustive historical analysis” of past laws."
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
The one that includes all
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 6:01am
The one that includes all able-bodied citizens between the ages of 16 and 60? That's what the militia is. Well-regulated merely means that they are proficient with their weapons.
More than anything, the 2nd ammendment is meant to apply to infantry weapons (these 'weapons of war' people keep going on about), because the point was that, in a crisis, the citizenry could instantly convert into effective infantry units to repel invaders or oppose tyrants. You know, like minutemen.
Honestly, instead of banning AR-15s, we ought to have a law requiring every citizen to own one, and to show up at a range at least once a year to practice with it.
Everything is up for debate.
By Tom Martell
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 5:24pm
Everything is up for debate. The Constitution was written explicitly to be a changeable, impermanent document. The Bill of Rights WERE changes.
The time to revisit the 2nd amendment is long overdue.
Of course it's up for debate
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 6:11pm
But "it's old and needs a change" is not an argument in a debate, it's a temper tantrum. The process for changing the Constitution requires broad popular and geographic consensus and is meant to take a long time so that the passions of the day do not dictate public policy and so that cooler heads may prevail.
The same sorts of people screaming to repeal the 2nd Amendment are often screaming to repeal (or reinterpret) the 1st by defining "commercial speech" or "hate speech" and banning it. They use the same sorts of sophistry: saying it's outdated, saying it was written by wealthy white men, etc etc etc without actually acknowledging the fundamental tradeoff between personal liberty and safety.
A society can value one above the other, or it can strive to have levels of both, but an honest debate acknowledges that fundamental tension and makes a case for staking out a position along that continuum. This is all just juvenile rage.
Grieving isn't juvenile
By anon
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 6:47pm
It is not juvenile to look for answers when our fellow citizens -- men, women, and children -- are dying senselessly. It is not juvenile to be enraged; it is sane. It is human.
This isn't grieving,
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 8:12pm
it's raging.
I'm sorry that you are so emotionally stunted
By anon
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 9:02pm
But expressing emotion and channelling it into rational democratic action isn't raging.
It is called being a citizen.
You might try that out sometime.
Enh
By anon
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 9:02pm
It's asking for sensible changes to be made such that innocent people aren't regularly mowed down by military-style weapons.
It's raging so hard
By Roman
Sat, 03/24/2018 - 11:39pm
it doesn't even take the time to understand that they aren't military-style weapons. They're the same damn guns that have been around for ever, just black and scary-looking.
Really?.
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 12:29pm
I've trained with military weapons. I'm not the only one who has done so to note the similarities - or the fact that gun manufacturers tout it as a selling point.
Sorry, hon, but you have no idea here. Go enlist or sign up for the Army National Guard and get back to us.
I bet you trained with a pistol too
By Roman
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 1:01pm
Probably one you can run to the store and buy, even in Mass. Does that make it a "military weapon" in any real way? I suspect that what you trained with is not something I can run to the store and buy, in Mass, Texas, Utah, or anywhere in the US.
Were you issued a knife? Shoes? Undergarments? And just for kicks, what about the damn-near COTS Ford F-150s that the Army uses alongside their special-order vehicles? Are those suddenly "military equipment" that needs extra restrictions on their sales to civilians?
"I've trained with military weapons. "
By dmcboston
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 5:12pm
So then you must know the fundamental differences between military issue ordnance and civilian rifles.
Such ignorance
By perruptor
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 6:08pm
I qualified Expert on the M-16 in the Army. The one difference between that weapon and an AR-15 is that the latter doesn't have a full-auto provision. Same ammunition, same magazines, same configuration.
That's a pretty big difference, isn't it?
By Roman
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 6:43pm
What else takes the same ammunition? Where would you draw the line?
No, it isn't
By perruptor
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 6:04am
Full-auto was so useless that they changed it to 3-round bursts in later editions of the M-16. If you pulled the trigger for 5 seconds on full-auto, you were out of ammunition. Soldiers were discouraged from using it.
I wouldn't draw the line at same ammunition, but that's as far as I'll go in answering your willfully ignorant questions. You've admitted to being a "gun nut." That puts you in the mentally-ill category. Goodbye.
Hello
By Roman
Mon, 03/26/2018 - 12:13pm
What's your definition of a "gun nut" exactly? Shack in NH with a cache of AKs? Guy who has more than one firearm of more than one type? Guy who has more than one gun on his person at all times of the day? Guy who has only one gun and goes to the range every couple of weeks? Guy who you can call names and don't have to answer serious questions from?
You've got to have a line somewhere and at least half a reason for drawing it where you do.
Nice question
By anon
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 8:42pm
Meaningless question, actually.
The tech specifications don't matter. The kill rate matters.
You seem to think that bringing up tech stuff about guns makes you look like you know something important. It really just makes you look like someone with an unhealthy obsession. Were you in my platoon, we would have been keeping an eye on you.
Signed,
USMC E-4
Retired
Pages
Add comment