Assault weapons ban

[BasicHumanUnit]

The biggest "Gun" problem that we have in this nation is the Left's refusal to have an honest discussion about the root cause.

Fix the root cause.....Horrible, damaging Leftist Social Policies, and you fix the problem.

Remember, America did not have this problem before the rise of Leftist policies and Progressivism.

 

[sealybobo]

The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.

“President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.

Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.

My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets. This gun should remain legal. It's clearly for hunting.

I know you gun nuts want to be able to protect yourselves from the government but guess what? Who's going to protect us from you? Even though you personally will never do a mass shooting, too many of your kind will and this needs to stop.

The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun. It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal. I say 5 is appropriate.

The 2nd amendment is about the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively from enemies.

Hunting is a side benefit.

You don't get to say it

If 5 is good enough, why don't we limit cops to that as well?

Because cops are hired to protect us.

I just saw a movie where the US Government gave 5 Apache's rifles, but they didn't give every Apache one. Those 5 were police. The other Apache could rent out guns to hunt but had to turn them in when they came back.

Should you have a nuke? Why not? Russia has one. What if Russia attacked you? So should you be allowed to have a nuke?

We can make it so eventually your enemies can't get their hands on assault rifles so your revolver will do just fine.

Cops are in place to stop us from settling our disputes violently on our own. Cops have ZERO requirement to actually protect anyone. Their main roles are deterrence, and investigation.

Argument ad absurdum.

Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.

Very few of these nuts would have gone with a laser printer gun. Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Yes. But for the most part the nut is going to go with what he can easily get his hands on. In the future it will be a 4 round rifle, a 10 capacity glock, a 5 shotgun shell shotgun. These will be the only guns you can get your hands on at the store. And so people will die at the hands of someone holding a shotgun. That's sad but there is nothing we can do about that. Shotguns are on the list of legal weapons you can own. Why? Because people hunt with them. No one hunts with an ak 47.

 

[sealybobo]

The biggest "Gun" problem that we have in this nation is the Left's refusal to have an honest discussion about the root cause.

Fix the root cause.....Horrible, damaging Leftist Social Policies, and you fix the problem.

Remember, America did not have this problem before the rise of Leftist policies and Progressivism.

We also didn't have this problem until Reagan got in bed with the NRA.

 

[sealybobo]

Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.

Not to mention that bad guys can EASILY slip them across the border that the left wants wide open.
Also, there are probably already 100 million "Tyranny Suppression" weapons already in the hands of Americans.

We may not be able to stop Juan from smuggling 1 illegal gun across the border but we can stop Walmart from selling them to all the white guys who go legally buy them and then go out to find Juan so they can murder him because he's brown.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

We also didn't have this problem until Reagan got in bed with the NRA.

In all fairness, Reagan was shot by a Leftist......and the NRA does not condone gun violence.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

We may not be able to stop Juan from smuggling 1 illegal gun across the border but we can stop Walmart from selling them to all the white guys who go legally buy them and then go out to find Juan so they can murder him because he's brown.

Ok, you've gone off the deep end.

My bad. I thought you were going to be reasonable.

 

[martybegan]

Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.

My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets. This gun should remain legal. It's clearly for hunting.

I know you gun nuts want to be able to protect yourselves from the government but guess what? Who's going to protect us from you? Even though you personally will never do a mass shooting, too many of your kind will and this needs to stop.

The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun. It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal. I say 5 is appropriate.

The 2nd amendment is about the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively from enemies.

Hunting is a side benefit.

You don't get to say it

If 5 is good enough, why don't we limit cops to that as well?

Because cops are hired to protect us.

I just saw a movie where the US Government gave 5 Apache's rifles, but they didn't give every Apache one. Those 5 were police. The other Apache could rent out guns to hunt but had to turn them in when they came back.

Should you have a nuke? Why not? Russia has one. What if Russia attacked you? So should you be allowed to have a nuke?

We can make it so eventually your enemies can't get their hands on assault rifles so your revolver will do just fine.

Cops are in place to stop us from settling our disputes violently on our own. Cops have ZERO requirement to actually protect anyone. Their main roles are deterrence, and investigation.

Argument ad absurdum.

Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.

Very few of these nuts would have gone with a laser printer gun. Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Yes. But for the most part the nut is going to go with what he can easily get his hands on. In the future it will be a 4 round rifle, a 10 capacity glock, a 5 shotgun shell shotgun. These will be the only guns you can get your hands on at the store. And so people will die at the hands of someone holding a shotgun. That's sad but there is nothing we can do about that. Shotguns are on the list of legal weapons you can own. Why? Because people hunt with them. No one hunts with an ak 47.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

 

[KissMy]

Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.

Not to mention that bad guys can EASILY slip them across the border that the left wants wide open.
Also, there are probably already 100 million "Tyranny Suppression" weapons already in the hands of Americans.

Funny how we have Tyranny with those weapons.

 

[sealybobo]

The biggest "Gun" problem that we have in this nation is the Left's refusal to have an honest discussion about the root cause.

Fix the root cause.....Horrible, damaging Leftist Social Policies, and you fix the problem.

Remember, America did not have this problem before the rise of Leftist policies and Progressivism.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States.

Reagan ultimately endorsed the Brady Bill in the early 1990s (it was, of course, named after his press secretary, James Brady, who was wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt), which was a significant step because it gave Republicans in Congress political cover in supporting the gun measure.

 

[Flash]

[Q


The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

It is about the citizens having the ability to fight against this:

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States.

Reagan ultimately endorsed the Brady Bill in the early 1990s (it was, of course, named after his press secretary, James Brady, who was wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt), which was a significant step because it gave Republicans in Congress political cover in supporting the gun measure.

And remember, Reagan was so popular because his election was one of the early waves of Americas visible frustration with leftists policies.....which were well on their way of destroying family life and social harmony.

 

[sealybobo]

We also didn't have this problem until Reagan got in bed with the NRA.

In all fairness, Reagan was shot by a Leftist......and the NRA does not condone gun violence.

Was he? His father was rich. he played football, basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball, learned to play the piano, and was elected class president twice.

Other than he shot Reagan, what makes you think he's a leftist?

 

[martybegan]

[Q


The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

It is about the citizens having the ability to fight against this:

Or at a more base level, the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively, against any realistic threat.

 

[Flash]

[Q


I want common sense gun control but I own guns. .

The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".

What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.

Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.

 

[sealybobo]

During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States.

Reagan ultimately endorsed the Brady Bill in the early 1990s (it was, of course, named after his press secretary, James Brady, who was wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt), which was a significant step because it gave Republicans in Congress political cover in supporting the gun measure.

And remember, Reagan was so popular because his election was one of the early waves of Americas visible frustration with leftists policies.....which were well on their way of destroying family life and social harmony.

Well guys like Reagan and Bush sent our jobs overseas, let the illegals in, broke unions...

This was the destruction of teh family. If one guy could no longer provide for a family of 4, this is why crime comes from. And then their kids do the same shit because they grow up without a 2 parent home and they have bastards.

Look at how today we have like 51% divorce rate. No kid grows up completely fine in a broke home. Some survive the experience but it's not good. For every 1 Ben Carson you have 100 kids who grow up and stay in poverty.

 

[Flash]

Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.

I have 29 AR-15s now.

I use them for legal purposes.

I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.

Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?

 

[sealybobo]

[Q


I want common sense gun control but I own guns. .

The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".

What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.

Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.

What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.

 

[martybegan]

[Q


I want common sense gun control but I own guns. .

The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".

What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.

Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.

I point out as Exhibit A, NYC's laws that make you wait 3-6 months and pay over $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in your home.

 

[Flash]

[Q


I want common sense gun control but I own guns. .

The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".

What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.

Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.

What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.

What do you consider "common sense"?

Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government. The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.

 

[Flash]

[Q


I want common sense gun control but I own guns. .

The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".

What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.

Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.

I point out as Exhibit A, NYC's laws that make you wait 3-6 months and pay over $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in your home.

On a state level the SAFE Act in New York is a very oppressive law infringing upon the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms.

I have several examples of the oppression.