Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That whole slippery slope argument is all you got isn't it? You can't rationally argue against banning assault weapons so you got to attempt to claim it is a "foot in the door", fear monger people into thinking that other guns will follow the assault rifle and be banned. But the slippery slope argument is STUPID, and easily proven wrong.This is the "foot in the door" approach of Democrats. That is why they play this game with "mass shootings" to capitalize on emotions. They have never shown any restraint when it comes to laws. If they get a ban on ARs, that will be the first step on the slippery slope.
because fuck you is why,,That whole slippery slope argument is all you got isn't it? You can't rationally argue against banning assault weapons so you got to attempt to claim it is a "foot in the door", fear monger people into thinking that other guns will follow the assault rifle and be banned. But the slippery slope argument is STUPID, and easily proven wrong.
The assault rifle was banned for TEN DAMN YEARS. In that ten years, name one, JUST FLIPPIN ONE, other gun that was banned. The gun grabbers had their "foot in the door" for TEN DAMN YEARS, and yet they never even bothered to try and ban another type of gun. So, don't walk that stupid ass argument up in here. That dog ain't going to hunt.
Until there is a clearly defined, agreed upon definition of what an "assault weapon" is, you will never resolve the argument. Using a vague term like "assault weapon" leads to this impasse.That whole slippery slope argument is all you got isn't it? You can't rationally argue against banning assault weapons so you got to attempt to claim it is a "foot in the door", fear monger people into thinking that other guns will follow the assault rifle and be banned. But the slippery slope argument is STUPID, and easily proven wrong.
The assault rifle was banned for TEN DAMN YEARS. In that ten years, name one, JUST FLIPPIN ONE, other gun that was banned. The gun grabbers had their "foot in the door" for TEN DAMN YEARS, and yet they never even bothered to try and ban another type of gun. So, don't walk that stupid ass argument up in here. That dog ain't going to hunt.
Importation of weapons, including a surplus of M1 Garands, was banned by the State Department under Obama in 2013, until the ban was lifted when Trump took office.That whole slippery slope argument is all you got isn't it? You can't rationally argue against banning assault weapons so you got to attempt to claim it is a "foot in the door", fear monger people into thinking that other guns will follow the assault rifle and be banned. But the slippery slope argument is STUPID, and easily proven wrong.
The assault rifle was banned for TEN DAMN YEARS. In that ten years, name one, JUST FLIPPIN ONE, other gun that was banned. The gun grabbers had their "foot in the door" for TEN DAMN YEARS, and yet they never even bothered to try and ban another type of gun. So, don't walk that stupid ass argument up in here. That dog ain't going to hunt.
LMAO, within minutes you gun nuts are contradicting each other. One of you is talking about assault pick-up trucks, you are wanting to claim we have a right to military grade weapons--sorry, Heller dashed that argument to bits. As if an AR-15 chambered in .223 is a military grade weapon. And yet another wants to make the "definition" argument. Thing is, the government has already established a definition for an assault rifle, I don't have to come up with one. Want to plink cans down at the range with the good old boys, take a .22 rifle without a folding stock and a rail.because fuck you is why,,
the 2nd A says our rights are specific to military grade arms,,,
So great, we go back to that ban. No problem, right?Importation of weapons, including a surplus of M1 Garands, was banned by the State Department under Obama in 2013, until the ban was lifted when Trump took office.
The assault weapon ban didn't ban all "assault style" weapons, like the AR-15 or AK-47. It only restricted specific makes and models, and if any characteristic like the model number were changed, then it was legal to sale. In addition it prohibited two or more aesthetic features that made a firearm scarier. You could still purchase an AR-15 or AK-47 from 1994 - 2004.
That is a lie.The assault rifle was banned for TEN DAMN YEARS.
I cant help what other people say,,LMAO, within minutes you gun nuts are contradicting each other. One of you is talking about assault pick-up trucks, you are wanting to claim we have a right to military grade weapons--sorry, Heller dashed that argument to bits. As if an AR-15 chambered in .223 is a military grade weapon. And yet another wants to make the "definition" argument. Thing is, the government has already established a definition for an assault rifle, I don't have to come up with one. Want to plink cans down at the range with the good old boys, take a .22 rifle without a folding stock and a rail.
Look, somebody, anybody, step up and make the only argument that matters. An AR-15 provides superior benefits that exceed the cost to society of their use. You know, like mass shootings with horrendous death rates. Benefits that no other rifle can provide. Is the AR-15 superior as a self-defense weapon. No, you can get better results with a shotgun, or even a pistol. Although I really like my .410 double barrel coach gun. Is it a superior hunting rifle, hell no, not even close. What about at the range, nope--that .22 I mentioned is just as good, probably better.
Sure .. then Ruger can just make an AR-16. Problem solved.So great, we go back to that ban. No problem, right?
Sure I can.That whole slippery slope argument is all you got isn't it? You can't rationally argue against banning assault weapons...
Given the whoopin' the Dems took in 1994, it's no wonder they haven't seriously tied to ban anything else at the federal laevel.The assault rifle was banned for TEN DAMN YEARS. In that ten years, name one, JUST FLIPPIN ONE, other gun that was banned.
The right to keep and bear arms is no longer subject to means-end testing; all that matters now is that the weapon falls under the umbrella of "all bearable arm".Look, somebody, anybody, step up and make the only argument that matters. An AR-15 provides superior benefits that exceed the cost to society of their use.
where does it say that in the 2nd or any other place in the constitution??The right to keep and bear arms is no longer subject to means-end testing; all that matters now is that weapon falls under the umberella of a "bearable arm".
That is, in common use for the traditionally legal purposes of a firearm.
Sigh .. The argument that matters is solving the underlying problem and trends we see across mass shooters .. yet ignorant individuals continue to focus on the outcome of behavior.Look, somebody, anybody, step up and make the only argument that matters. An AR-15 provides superior benefits that exceed the cost to society of their use. You know, like mass shootings with horrendous death rates. Benefits that no other rifle can provide. Is the AR-15 superior as a self-defense weapon. No, you can get better results with a shotgun, or even a pistol. Although I really like my .410 double barrel coach gun. Is it a superior hunting rifle, hell no, not even close. What about at the range, nope--that .22 I mentioned is just as good, probably better.
Again, if the previous assault weapons ban was no big deal, then we go back to it. I am fine with that. And again, another gun nut fabricating shit, because they can't make a solid argument against an assault weapons ban. Because yes, the previous assault weapons ban did provide results.That is a lie.
There was no assault rifle ban. The Liberals called it that but the ban was only for cosmetic features.
Every existing rifle was grandfathered. ARs, AKs and all other rifles could be continued to be produced and sold however, not with a couple of cosmetic items, like a byonet lug or folding stock.
The only teeth the stupid "ban" had was a restriction on selling newly produced standard capacity magazines. However, since there were literally hundreds of millions of grandfathered magazines so that didn't amount to hill of beans.
The ban that Potatohead brags about had no practical effect on anything relating to crime.
theconversation.com
as soon as you get the constitution changed we can talk,, until then fuck off,,,Again, if the previous assault weapons ban was no big deal, then we go back to it. I am fine with that. And again, another gun nut fabricating shit, because they can't make a solid argument against an assault weapons ban. Because yes, the previous assault weapons ban did provide results.
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us
Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.
"that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”I cant help what other people say,,
but the 2nd A says its specifically about military grade arms in the first 4 words,,
to break it down for you the 2nd says what we need, why we need it and how we are going to get it,,
its simple basic english,,
thereload.com
