400 million guns

You just made my point.

What you leave out is that a .223 is ALWAYS a more powerful round.

It’s essentially a designation not a measurement

the .223 number IS the caliber

the shell itself can contain different amounts of powder.

A .22 WMR round would be just as effective in an enclosed space mass shooting like a school or office building as a .223
 
So to you an M1A or Ruger Mini-14 are ARs?
According to her, this is an AR.

Browning%20BAR%20MK%203%20-%20031047246.jpg
 
The military uses pocket knives and shovels too.

ARs are a particularly dangerous "weapon of war"


ARs are not weapons of war.....have never been used by the military, never been used in war....your pump action shotgun, however, is in current use by all the militaries around the world...
 
"...Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing
and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --"Matt" (anonymous) from his review of Adam Winkler's 'Gunfight, the Battle Over the Second Amendment in America"

There are some 400 million guns in America, and if guns were making us safer, we'd be the safest place on earth, which America is not.

That is a fact Republicans cannot reconcile.

And to average republican, I guess that for them, they aren't enough.

Guns deaths have taken the lead in children, and this is a fairly recent development. And, please, no crap about 'well, half those deaths are suicide' because,
simply because that stat isn't caused by fewer guns, let's be clear.

So I hope those of you second amendment 'cold dead hands' types are happy.

It sure isn't for the parents of those dead children whose lives have been ruined by your cherished 'second amendment'.

Personally, though America's second amendment was a necessary component of life in the frontiers of the late 18th century when the nation was founded, they could not have foreseen 233 years into the future to know of a modern urban landscape where weapons could kill hundreds of people in a relatively short period of time, that had they known, it is doubtful they would have confined the second amendment's langage to one compound sentence, whose actual meaning continues to be debated to this day.

It's time for a 28th Amendment to update the 2nd, a vertible 2nd Amendment 2.0, as it were, and as to what the new language would be, I'll let you guys duke it out, but it needs to be updated,

It's time.

Cheers,
Rumpole
Sometimes a good answer to tangent lost OPs like this, comes from a movie. In this case the movie is Out of Africa, starring Robert Redford and Meryl Streep. While walking around in the bush country of Kenya, Streep's horse (with rifle attached), is spooked by an approaching female lion (appears to be a healthy 330 pounds with plenty of teeth & sharp claws) Just then Redford appears with a rifle (or shotgun), and the lion continues to approach Streep.

Redford tells Streep "don't run" so the lion won't see her as prey, and the lion doesn't like the smell of her (perfume no doubt). In full panic, Streep tells Redford to shoot the lion, but Redford knows the lion wont attack.

And why don't lions attack humans with a long gun ? Because they're not as stupid as some people might think. They've seen humans with guns before, and they know what they can do.

The lion moves away and leaves. Redford asks Streep where is her gun ? She says "it's with the horse and he ran away" (leaving Streep defenseless to the lion). Redford says she better keep her rifle with her.

Aha, so you see ? Without the gun she's defenseless against the attacker. With it, she could have stopped the lion cold, if it had attacked her.

Note: perfume won't deter human attackers. Neither will being unarmed.
 
I literally answered this in the sentence right above where you copy and pasted.





Maybe not “you” but “the left” has talked mandatory buybacks.

But we’re getting off point here. My point was, and still is that, if the left wants to get rid of guns, why are they not turning them in?

Seems nobody wants to answer that…
This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy – a tiny minority of individuals are not representative of an entire class of persons.
 

Forum List

Back
Top