(06-04-2022 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 12:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 09:56 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Bringing it down by half would make us more comparable to Germany or France. Still very high, but respectable. If Germans aren't afraid of their government enough to have a terrorist level of guns in society like we have even after suffering with Hitler, we should be able to do the same. That's where I got the stat from.

But why is that desirable number?

Maybe if Germans had had more guns, they might not have had to deal with Hitler.

Quote:The REAL question is how HIGH does it have to get before you're afraid to go out of your house? 100 guns per citizen? 1000? A million? Republicans want as many as possible. No limits whatsoever. The more the merrier because their philosophy is the more guns on the street the SAFER we are. The exact philosophy a terrorist has.

I doubt it could get high enough that I would not want to leave my house. I would be more likely to be worried that it wasn't high enough to deter a Hitler here.

At any rate, most of our gun deaths are suicides, and leaving my house as nothing to do with that.

The laugher here is the fact that it didn't matter whether Germans were allowed to own guns or how many guns they owned. Much like Trump here, Hitler had Germans so brainwashed, that they welcomed him into office. He didn't even have to get voted into office. In fact, he literally burned down the equivalent of their capital building and STILL no one said anything as they annointed him to power. They were THAT brainwashed into supporting him. Sound familiar? It was only after the war when all the propaganda ended and they were marched into the concentration camps were they slapped with the reality of the situation. Guns would have did crap to prevent anything to do with Hilter. Only recognizing the danger of the propaganda to begin with, not to mention the fact there was an assault on the symbol of democracy, could the problem have been prevented. Again, sound familiar?

If you want a REAL example of the danger of guns when it comes to overthrowing our government, all you have to do is look at the Civil War. That is the one and only time citizens took up arms against the government and what were they fighting for? Slavery! Let that sink in. If that makes you proud, then that's on you.

History shows that in a functioning healthy democracy, if you have to take up arms against the government, you are a terrorist on the wrong side of history. You don't need guns to fight for democracy when you already have one. All you need to do is vote for it! And if you're too stupid to do that, no gun is going to save you anyway.

(06-04-2022 10:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  You are a fuqn liar or are a complete imbecile. The military uses actual assault rifles, the difference being that they are capable of fully automatic shooting. Commercial AR's are not, in fact that function is outlawed for the average citizen. The only way to legally possess an actual assault rifle capable of automatic fire is to have a class 3 firearms license.

But you already know that, it just doesn't do anything to advance your agenda to admit it.

I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

That definition would allow for a break action single barrel shot gun, a pump-action shotgun, and a bolt action single shot rifle. Pretty much everything else-- including revolvers---can easily fire multiple rounds off in a second or less. Keep in mind that the Second Amendment was not written to protect hunting weapons. It was enshrined into the Bill of Rights in order to guarantee the governed would have access to fire arms.

He has no clue because he’s just arbitrarily spouting out all the BS he’s heard democrats preach into his ear. It’s the blind leading the deaf, dumb and blind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 12:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 09:56 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Bringing it down by half would make us more comparable to Germany or France. Still very high, but respectable. If Germans aren't afraid of their government enough to have a terrorist level of guns in society like we have even after suffering with Hitler, we should be able to do the same. That's where I got the stat from.

But why is that desirable number?

Maybe if Germans had had more guns, they might not have had to deal with Hitler.

Quote:The REAL question is how HIGH does it have to get before you're afraid to go out of your house? 100 guns per citizen? 1000? A million? Republicans want as many as possible. No limits whatsoever. The more the merrier because their philosophy is the more guns on the street the SAFER we are. The exact philosophy a terrorist has.

I doubt it could get high enough that I would not want to leave my house. I would be more likely to be worried that it wasn't high enough to deter a Hitler here.

At any rate, most of our gun deaths are suicides, and leaving my house as nothing to do with that.

The laugher here is the fact that it didn't matter whether Germans were allowed to own guns or how many guns they owned. Much like Trump here, Hitler had Germans so brainwashed, that they welcomed him into office. He didn't even have to get voted into office. In fact, he literally burned down the equivalent of their capital building and STILL no one said anything as they annointed him to power. They were THAT brainwashed into supporting him. Sound familiar? It was only after the war when all the propaganda ended and they were marched into the concentration camps were they slapped with the reality of the situation. Guns would have did crap to prevent anything to do with Hilter. Only recognizing the danger of the propaganda to begin with, not to mention the fact there was an assault on the symbol of democracy, could the problem have been prevented. Again, sound familiar?

If you want a REAL example of the danger of guns when it comes to overthrowing our government, all you have to do is look at the Civil War. That is the one and only time citizens took up arms against the government and what were they fighting for? Slavery! Let that sink in. If that makes you proud, then that's on you.

History shows that in a functioning healthy democracy, if you have to take up arms against the government, you are a terrorist on the wrong side of history. You don't need guns to fight for democracy when you already have one. All you need to do is vote for it! And if you're too stupid to do that, no gun is going to save you anyway.

(06-04-2022 10:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  You are a fuqn liar or are a complete imbecile. The military uses actual assault rifles, the difference being that they are capable of fully automatic shooting. Commercial AR's are not, in fact that function is outlawed for the average citizen. The only way to legally possess an actual assault rifle capable of automatic fire is to have a class 3 firearms license.

But you already know that, it just doesn't do anything to advance your agenda to admit it.

I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

And again you show yourself to be a freakin moron.

(06-04-2022 08:48 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 12:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 09:56 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Bringing it down by half would make us more comparable to Germany or France. Still very high, but respectable. If Germans aren't afraid of their government enough to have a terrorist level of guns in society like we have even after suffering with Hitler, we should be able to do the same. That's where I got the stat from.

But why is that desirable number?

Maybe if Germans had had more guns, they might not have had to deal with Hitler.

Quote:The REAL question is how HIGH does it have to get before you're afraid to go out of your house? 100 guns per citizen? 1000? A million? Republicans want as many as possible. No limits whatsoever. The more the merrier because their philosophy is the more guns on the street the SAFER we are. The exact philosophy a terrorist has.

I doubt it could get high enough that I would not want to leave my house. I would be more likely to be worried that it wasn't high enough to deter a Hitler here.

At any rate, most of our gun deaths are suicides, and leaving my house as nothing to do with that.

The laugher here is the fact that it didn't matter whether Germans were allowed to own guns or how many guns they owned. Much like Trump here, Hitler had Germans so brainwashed, that they welcomed him into office. He didn't even have to get voted into office. In fact, he literally burned down the equivalent of their capital building and STILL no one said anything as they annointed him to power. They were THAT brainwashed into supporting him. Sound familiar? It was only after the war when all the propaganda ended and they were marched into the concentration camps were they slapped with the reality of the situation. Guns would have did crap to prevent anything to do with Hilter. Only recognizing the danger of the propaganda to begin with, not to mention the fact there was an assault on the symbol of democracy, could the problem have been prevented. Again, sound familiar?

If you want a REAL example of the danger of guns when it comes to overthrowing our government, all you have to do is look at the Civil War. That is the one and only time citizens took up arms against the government and what were they fighting for? Slavery! Let that sink in. If that makes you proud, then that's on you.

History shows that in a functioning healthy democracy, if you have to take up arms against the government, you are a terrorist on the wrong side of history. You don't need guns to fight for democracy when you already have one. All you need to do is vote for it! And if you're too stupid to do that, no gun is going to save you anyway.

(06-04-2022 10:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  You are a fuqn liar or are a complete imbecile. The military uses actual assault rifles, the difference being that they are capable of fully automatic shooting. Commercial AR's are not, in fact that function is outlawed for the average citizen. The only way to legally possess an actual assault rifle capable of automatic fire is to have a class 3 firearms license.

But you already know that, it just doesn't do anything to advance your agenda to admit it.

I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

And again you show yourself to be a freakin moron.

The fact that none of our other resident lefties here come out and deny the scorp under any circumstances here, tells us they agree with him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 12:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 09:56 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Bringing it down by half would make us more comparable to Germany or France. Still very high, but respectable. If Germans aren't afraid of their government enough to have a terrorist level of guns in society like we have even after suffering with Hitler, we should be able to do the same. That's where I got the stat from.

But why is that desirable number?

Maybe if Germans had had more guns, they might not have had to deal with Hitler.

Quote:The REAL question is how HIGH does it have to get before you're afraid to go out of your house? 100 guns per citizen? 1000? A million? Republicans want as many as possible. No limits whatsoever. The more the merrier because their philosophy is the more guns on the street the SAFER we are. The exact philosophy a terrorist has.

I doubt it could get high enough that I would not want to leave my house. I would be more likely to be worried that it wasn't high enough to deter a Hitler here.

At any rate, most of our gun deaths are suicides, and leaving my house as nothing to do with that.

The laugher here is the fact that it didn't matter whether Germans were allowed to own guns or how many guns they owned. Much like Trump here, Hitler had Germans so brainwashed, that they welcomed him into office. He didn't even have to get voted into office. In fact, he literally burned down the equivalent of their capital building and STILL no one said anything as they annointed him to power. They were THAT brainwashed into supporting him. Sound familiar? It was only after the war when all the propaganda ended and they were marched into the concentration camps were they slapped with the reality of the situation. Guns would have did crap to prevent anything to do with Hilter. Only recognizing the danger of the propaganda to begin with, not to mention the fact there was an assault on the symbol of democracy, could the problem have been prevented. Again, sound familiar?

If you want a REAL example of the danger of guns when it comes to overthrowing our government, all you have to do is look at the Civil War. That is the one and only time citizens took up arms against the government and what were they fighting for? Slavery! Let that sink in. If that makes you proud, then that's on you.

History shows that in a functioning healthy democracy, if you have to take up arms against the government, you are a terrorist on the wrong side of history. You don't need guns to fight for democracy when you already have one. All you need to do is vote for it! And if you're too stupid to do that, no gun is going to save you anyway.

(06-04-2022 10:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  You are a fuqn liar or are a complete imbecile. The military uses actual assault rifles, the difference being that they are capable of fully automatic shooting. Commercial AR's are not, in fact that function is outlawed for the average citizen. The only way to legally possess an actual assault rifle capable of automatic fire is to have a class 3 firearms license.

But you already know that, it just doesn't do anything to advance your agenda to admit it.

I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

I know you hate the Constitution, but there it is.

Our founding fathers had just overthrown a tyrannical government just like the one you are hoping for now. They knew the importance of having an armed citizenry; so much so that they specifically laid it out in our Constitution.

If you want my guns, come and try to take them.

(06-04-2022 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 12:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 09:56 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Bringing it down by half would make us more comparable to Germany or France. Still very high, but respectable. If Germans aren't afraid of their government enough to have a terrorist level of guns in society like we have even after suffering with Hitler, we should be able to do the same. That's where I got the stat from.

But why is that desirable number?

Maybe if Germans had had more guns, they might not have had to deal with Hitler.

Quote:The REAL question is how HIGH does it have to get before you're afraid to go out of your house? 100 guns per citizen? 1000? A million? Republicans want as many as possible. No limits whatsoever. The more the merrier because their philosophy is the more guns on the street the SAFER we are. The exact philosophy a terrorist has.

I doubt it could get high enough that I would not want to leave my house. I would be more likely to be worried that it wasn't high enough to deter a Hitler here.

At any rate, most of our gun deaths are suicides, and leaving my house as nothing to do with that.

The laugher here is the fact that it didn't matter whether Germans were allowed to own guns or how many guns they owned. Much like Trump here, Hitler had Germans so brainwashed, that they welcomed him into office. He didn't even have to get voted into office. In fact, he literally burned down the equivalent of their capital building and STILL no one said anything as they annointed him to power. They were THAT brainwashed into supporting him. Sound familiar? It was only after the war when all the propaganda ended and they were marched into the concentration camps were they slapped with the reality of the situation. Guns would have did crap to prevent anything to do with Hilter. Only recognizing the danger of the propaganda to begin with, not to mention the fact there was an assault on the symbol of democracy, could the problem have been prevented. Again, sound familiar?

If you want a REAL example of the danger of guns when it comes to overthrowing our government, all you have to do is look at the Civil War. That is the one and only time citizens took up arms against the government and what were they fighting for? Slavery! Let that sink in. If that makes you proud, then that's on you.

History shows that in a functioning healthy democracy, if you have to take up arms against the government, you are a terrorist on the wrong side of history. You don't need guns to fight for democracy when you already have one. All you need to do is vote for it! And if you're too stupid to do that, no gun is going to save you anyway.

(06-04-2022 10:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  You are a fuqn liar or are a complete imbecile. The military uses actual assault rifles, the difference being that they are capable of fully automatic shooting. Commercial AR's are not, in fact that function is outlawed for the average citizen. The only way to legally possess an actual assault rifle capable of automatic fire is to have a class 3 firearms license.

But you already know that, it just doesn't do anything to advance your agenda to admit it.

I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

That definition would allow for a break action single barrel shot gun, a pump-action shotgun, and a bolt action single shot rifle. Pretty much everything else-- including revolvers---can easily fire multiple rounds off in a second or less. Keep in mind that the Second Amendment was not written to protect hunting weapons. It was enshrined into the Bill of Rights in order to guarantee the governed would have access to fire arms.

Do I foresee a civil war? No---but as you noted---it has happened before. Strangely, you then went on to say that if the population takes up arms against the government in a functioning democracy, then those people are terrorists. The reality? The mere existence of civil war in a society is probably the best defining indication of the absence of any "healthy functioning democracy". Stated another way---when you have a large group of people willing to take up arms and fight to the death rather than live under the current government----thats not a healthy democracy. Thats a revolution.

Exactly.
And this unserious dope apparently doesn’t even know that our Fores took up arms in Revolution in order to make a Democracy.

Now? Let’s give it all up because some mentally ill kids have gotten their angst on, the authorities given the responsibility to police these kind of things have failed time and time again and those charged with securing our children won’t (not can’t) won’t take up common sense solutions to PREVENT this crap.

Go do the search button on what has been posted here for years. This ain’t hard. Deciding to fix it apparently is.

Why? Don’t we all want it fixed? Don’t we?

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Much like Trump here, Hitler had Germans so brainwashed, that they welcomed him into office.

With that Trump/Hitler comparison, you just lost whatever shred of credibility you had left.

Quote:History shows that in a functioning healthy democracy, if you have to take up arms against the government, you are a terrorist on the wrong side of history.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and indeed the Constitution, is to put sufficient limits on government that it remains a functioning, healthy, democratic republic. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so the natural inclination for any government is not to remain a functioning, healthy, democratic republic. The purpose of the Constitution is to restrain that tendency.

Quote:I don't care the definition.

Obviously not, because you clearly live in your own never-never land dream world where objective standards and reality pale in comparison to your subjective perceptions.

Quote:As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them.

Why not?

(06-04-2022 08:36 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 12:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 09:56 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Bringing it down by half would make us more comparable to Germany or France. Still very high, but respectable. If Germans aren't afraid of their government enough to have a terrorist level of guns in society like we have even after suffering with Hitler, we should be able to do the same. That's where I got the stat from.

But why is that desirable number?

Maybe if Germans had had more guns, they might not have had to deal with Hitler.

Quote:The REAL question is how HIGH does it have to get before you're afraid to go out of your house? 100 guns per citizen? 1000? A million? Republicans want as many as possible. No limits whatsoever. The more the merrier because their philosophy is the more guns on the street the SAFER we are. The exact philosophy a terrorist has.

I doubt it could get high enough that I would not want to leave my house. I would be more likely to be worried that it wasn't high enough to deter a Hitler here.

At any rate, most of our gun deaths are suicides, and leaving my house as nothing to do with that.

The laugher here is the fact that it didn't matter whether Germans were allowed to own guns or how many guns they owned. Much like Trump here, Hitler had Germans so brainwashed, that they welcomed him into office. He didn't even have to get voted into office. In fact, he literally burned down the equivalent of their capital building and STILL no one said anything as they annointed him to power. They were THAT brainwashed into supporting him. Sound familiar? It was only after the war when all the propaganda ended and they were marched into the concentration camps were they slapped with the reality of the situation. Guns would have did crap to prevent anything to do with Hilter. Only recognizing the danger of the propaganda to begin with, not to mention the fact there was an assault on the symbol of democracy, could the problem have been prevented. Again, sound familiar?

If you want a REAL example of the danger of guns when it comes to overthrowing our government, all you have to do is look at the Civil War. That is the one and only time citizens took up arms against the government and what were they fighting for? Slavery! Let that sink in. If that makes you proud, then that's on you.

History shows that in a functioning healthy democracy, if you have to take up arms against the government, you are a terrorist on the wrong side of history. You don't need guns to fight for democracy when you already have one. All you need to do is vote for it! And if you're too stupid to do that, no gun is going to save you anyway.

(06-04-2022 10:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  You are a fuqn liar or are a complete imbecile. The military uses actual assault rifles, the difference being that they are capable of fully automatic shooting. Commercial AR's are not, in fact that function is outlawed for the average citizen. The only way to legally possess an actual assault rifle capable of automatic fire is to have a class 3 firearms license.

But you already know that, it just doesn't do anything to advance your agenda to admit it.

I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

That definition would allow for a break action single barrel shot gun, a pump-action shotgun, and a bolt action single shot rifle. Pretty much everything else-- including revolvers---can easily fire multiple rounds off in a second or less. Keep in mind that the Second Amendment was not written to protect hunting weapons. It was enshrined into the Bill of Rights in order to guarantee the governed would have access to fire arms.

He has no clue because he’s just arbitrarily spouting out all the BS he’s heard democrats preach into his ear. It’s the blind leading the deaf, dumb and blind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

He has already proved that he doesn't know jack about firearms. More than once. And of course, people aren't the problem. Guns are the problem.

Dems in power don't want to do anything about the mentally ill, and they don't want to harden schools, even though they did for airports, and they sure as hell do for their own personal security.

Why not? Because they think more mass shootings will help them win elections. Outrageous.

Meanwhile, Einstein says if we just give up half our guns, the deaths will be cut in half.

You can't debate these people. They don't want a debate. They simply lie about and ignore facts. Because they just want to hold onto power at any cost. Despicable.

(06-05-2022 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 08:36 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 12:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But why is that desirable number?

Maybe if Germans had had more guns, they might not have had to deal with Hitler.


I doubt it could get high enough that I would not want to leave my house. I would be more likely to be worried that it wasn't high enough to deter a Hitler here.

At any rate, most of our gun deaths are suicides, and leaving my house as nothing to do with that.

The laugher here is the fact that it didn't matter whether Germans were allowed to own guns or how many guns they owned. Much like Trump here, Hitler had Germans so brainwashed, that they welcomed him into office. He didn't even have to get voted into office. In fact, he literally burned down the equivalent of their capital building and STILL no one said anything as they annointed him to power. They were THAT brainwashed into supporting him. Sound familiar? It was only after the war when all the propaganda ended and they were marched into the concentration camps were they slapped with the reality of the situation. Guns would have did crap to prevent anything to do with Hilter. Only recognizing the danger of the propaganda to begin with, not to mention the fact there was an assault on the symbol of democracy, could the problem have been prevented. Again, sound familiar?

If you want a REAL example of the danger of guns when it comes to overthrowing our government, all you have to do is look at the Civil War. That is the one and only time citizens took up arms against the government and what were they fighting for? Slavery! Let that sink in. If that makes you proud, then that's on you.

History shows that in a functioning healthy democracy, if you have to take up arms against the government, you are a terrorist on the wrong side of history. You don't need guns to fight for democracy when you already have one. All you need to do is vote for it! And if you're too stupid to do that, no gun is going to save you anyway.

(06-04-2022 10:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  You are a fuqn liar or are a complete imbecile. The military uses actual assault rifles, the difference being that they are capable of fully automatic shooting. Commercial AR's are not, in fact that function is outlawed for the average citizen. The only way to legally possess an actual assault rifle capable of automatic fire is to have a class 3 firearms license.

But you already know that, it just doesn't do anything to advance your agenda to admit it.

I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

That definition would allow for a break action single barrel shot gun, a pump-action shotgun, and a bolt action single shot rifle. Pretty much everything else-- including revolvers---can easily fire multiple rounds off in a second or less. Keep in mind that the Second Amendment was not written to protect hunting weapons. It was enshrined into the Bill of Rights in order to guarantee the governed would have access to fire arms.

He has no clue because he’s just arbitrarily spouting out all the BS he’s heard democrats preach into his ear. It’s the blind leading the deaf, dumb and blind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

He has already proved that he doesn't know jack about firearms. More than once. And of course, people aren't the problem. Guns are the problem.

Dems in power don't want to do anything about the mentally ill, and they don't want to harden schools, even though they did for airports, and they sure as hell do for their own personal security.

Why not? Because they think more mass shootings will help them win elections. Outrageous.

Meanwhile, Einstein says if we just give up half our guns, the deaths will be cut in half.

You can't debate these people. They don't want a debate. They simply lie about and ignore facts. Because they just want to hold onto power at any cost. Despicable.

There's the crux of the matter. And when you call them on their lies they either ignore you and repeat the lie or deny they are lying and then repeat the lie.

Why do you have your hand in that cookie jar?

What cookie jar?

The one you have your hand in.

That's not a cookie jar.

It most certainly is a cookie jar.

That's not my hand.

It most certainly is your hand.

I just told you it's not a cookie jar, let's talk about your carbon footprint and how it's effecting my hand that isn't in the cookie jar, even though it's not a cookie jar. Say, where is your hand anyway?

Here's an interesting idea that could potentially skirt both the Senate filibuster and any unfavorable 2nd Amendment decisions from our current Supreme Court. Even if Congress doesn't act on this, I imagine some blue states will -

"A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes"

https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat...ion-2022-6

(06-05-2022 12:18 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Here's an interesting idea that could potentially skirt both the Senate filibuster and any unfavorable 2nd Amendment decisions from our current Supreme Court. Even if Congress doesn't act on this, I imagine some blue states will -

"A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes"

https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat...ion-2022-6

Taxation of the press or church were considered infringements on the Constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of religion. I suspect unusually high fees on weapons would be viewed in the same light by courts. Instantaneous background checks, age limits, and "red flag" laws are about as far as I think as the government might be reasonably able to go without running afoul of the second amendment. As for passing the 1000% tax without republican votes----Im not sure Manchin would go for that. I do wonder if some of the weak worthless Republican Rino's might.

(06-05-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 12:18 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Here's an interesting idea that could potentially skirt both the Senate filibuster and any unfavorable 2nd Amendment decisions from our current Supreme Court. Even if Congress doesn't act on this, I imagine some blue states will -
"A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes"
https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat...ion-2022-6

Taxation of the press or church were considered infringements on the Constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of religion. I suspect unusually high fees on weapons would be viewed in the same light by courts. Instantaneous background checks, age limits, and "red flag" laws are about as far as I think as the government might be reasonably able to go without running afoul of the second amendment. As for passing the 1000% tax without republican votes----Im not sure Manchin would go for that. I do wonder if some of the weak worthless Republican Rino's might.

Didn't we once have something called a poll tax that was overturned on the basis that its purpose was discriminatory rather than as a valid source of revenues? I think this would run afoul of that line of reasoning.

(06-05-2022 01:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 12:18 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Here's an interesting idea that could potentially skirt both the Senate filibuster and any unfavorable 2nd Amendment decisions from our current Supreme Court. Even if Congress doesn't act on this, I imagine some blue states will -
"A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes"
https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat...ion-2022-6

Taxation of the press or church were considered infringements on the Constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of religion. I suspect unusually high fees on weapons would be viewed in the same light by courts. Instantaneous background checks, age limits, and "red flag" laws are about as far as I think as the government might be reasonably able to go without running afoul of the second amendment. As for passing the 1000% tax without republican votes----Im not sure Manchin would go for that. I do wonder if some of the weak worthless Republican Rino's might.

I think this would run afoul of that line of reasoning.

First, I agree and think you’re correct here.

However, the left has a very perverse line of reasoning, and the right (politicians) have slowly abandoned theirs in favor of votes, power and money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(06-05-2022 12:18 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Here's an interesting idea that could potentially skirt both the Senate filibuster and any unfavorable 2nd Amendment decisions from our current Supreme Court. Even if Congress doesn't act on this, I imagine some blue states will -

"A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes"

https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat...ion-2022-6

Such a typical democrat move. A microscopic number of gun deaths are from an AR-15.

Such a bill will have virtually zero impact on actual gun deaths, which the dems pretend is the whole reason or it. So the bill does nothing of consequence to fix the problem, but you idiots would celebrate it like its a historic solution.

Now I am not stupid, so I realize that the people in power on the left know it would be meaningless for stopping actual gun deaths, its simply another move to take away gun rights which is their real agenda.

But a lot of regular people on the left (like you) are stupid enough to actually think the purpose here is combating gun deaths. Facts and reality totally escape you.

If guns were only owned by law abiding citizens, there would be no gun crime.

So why do GUNS need to be controlled?

Maybe if you start lighting some of these mass shooting a$$holes up in the chair they'd think twice about doing it!

Oh, I'm sorry. ... That's uncivilized.

(06-05-2022 03:23 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  If guns were only owned by law abiding citizens, there would be no gun crime.

So why do GUNS need to be controlled?

Maybe if you start lighting some of these mass shooting a$$holes up in the chair they'd think twice about doing it!

Oh, I'm sorry. ... That's uncivilized.

I’d rather publicly hang them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Gun ownership just hit higher.

My youngest turned 21 on Friday...instead of going to a bar to celebrate he went to a range, purchased a Sig Sauer and a Zastava AK, a safe and took his CCW course.

(06-05-2022 03:24 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 03:23 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  If guns were only owned by law abiding citizens, there would be no gun crime.

So why do GUNS need to be controlled?

Maybe if you start lighting some of these mass shooting a$$holes up in the chair they'd think twice about doing it!

Oh, I'm sorry. ... That's uncivilized.

I’d rather publicly hang them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This would help

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Hey leftists....

...and the Final Jeopardy question is!!

How would have "gun control" stopped these crimes?



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

So wait.. Ranchers should only have guns that can kill a bear to protect their herd if only supervised?

What about those of us who hunt, are we not allowed to have a weapon to defend ourselves in case of a bear attack?

I guess bear hunting is no longer an option unless you take a supervisor too.. Who's gonna supervise the people who purchase these guns illegally?

You seem to want to blame an inanimate object. Twice our DOJ failed to follow up when someone was reported to claim they wanted to shoot up a school.. One was Parkland the other Uvlade, so maybe we don't need to ban guns, maybe we need a better DOJ.

Let's take a look at Uvalde. Let's assume we had banned all AR-15s, and let's further assume that the ban actually worked (hypothetically, of course; the first assumption might happen, but no way the second assumption does). So the kid gets into the school with a non-semi-automatic rifle, or a pistol, or shotgun, or whatever. He had an hour in the building and he killed 19 kids. Does anybody truly believe you need a 30-round magazine to kill 19 people in an hour?

Considering that, does anybody really believe that outlawing any type of gun would have prevented the Uvalde tragedy? There may (or may not) be an argument that without an "assault rifle" he would have killed only 10 or 12 or 15, but would that still not be an awful tragedy?

The point is, if you want to prevent mass shootings, you have to look elsewhere from the gun. You have to look at the shooter and access controls.

Remember, the largest school shooting ever was with pistols.