Biden Calls For A Gun Ban After Colorado Shooting

[jc456]

Many suicide and homicide offenders find guns owned by their family members or friends.

HOW WILL THEY FIND MY GUN WHEN IT'S ON MY PERSON AND THE REST ARE IN A SAFE?

Sadly many gun owners are not very careful.

Any supporting evidence?

 

[White 6]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

 

[jc456]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

Explain how to use it for guns?

 

[Rigby5]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

All of those definitions actually mean to "facilitate".
Why do you bring under the control of law? It is to ensure it is not impeded.
Why do you make regulations? It is so that no one can interfere.
When you regulate tire pressure, it is to ensure the tire does not go flat and stop working.
A "well regulated clock" is one that is well functioning, not one that is restricted.

Read history on the original meaning of "well regulated".
{...
On the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment
Henry E. Schaffer

"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty
of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation,
and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social
Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."

These resounding words were the opening of a November 12, 1789 Act of
the North Carolina Legislature which was passed on December 11, 1789 and
which chartered the University of North Carolina. Noting that this Act
was contemporaneous with the Bill of Rights (which was transmitted to the
state legislatures on September 25, 1789) and that the North Carolina
Legislature was active at that time, North Carolina being one of the
original 13 states, let us pay particular attention to the usage of the
words "well regulated" found both in this Act and in the 2nd Amendment
of the BoR. The use of "well regulated" in this act can shed some light
on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The debate between the collectivist and the individualist
interpretations of the 2nd has often focused on the meaning of "well
regulated" in the opening phrase "well regulated Militia". The
collectivists claim this this refers to a Militia which is tightly
controlled by the government, deducing this from the etymology of
"regulated" which relates to "ruled". However, this ignores the usage
of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper
operations of a device rather than to man-made laws. We still see this
in the word "regular", which in many contexts means "properly operating."

Let me give two examples of usage of the word "regulate" which have
been in existence for quite a long time and which have the same
"properly operating" interpretation.

1) Horology: The adjustment of a portable timepiece so it will keep
time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept (and
perhaps at the different temperatures which it may encounter.) A
(mechanical) wrist-watch which has been so designed and adjusted is said
to be "regulated" and likely has this word stamped or engraved on its
back-plate.

2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim.
If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling")
fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and
needs to be "re-regulated".

Both of these uses have meanings *related* to the "to rule" of
man-made laws, but are more in the nature of "to adjust to or to be in
a state of proper functioning". So a "well regulated watch" or a "well
regulated double barreled shotgun" both would have meaning of "having
been put into properly functioning condition".

From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped
militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their
own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)

The language of the NC Legislature in 1789 strengthens this
interpretation. What can "well regulated Governments" mean other
than "properly functioning Governments"? Surely it didn't and
couldn't refer to a government under the control of man-made laws, for
it is the government itself which makes these laws, and it would neither
be noble nor sensible for the Legislature to be proclaiming that it is
controlling itself.

An additional contemporaneous document which exhibits the same
meaning is the Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing
the composition of the militia and says, "To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to_acquire_the_degree_of_
perfection_which_would_entitle_them_to_the_character_of_a_
well-regulated_militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis added)

Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not
refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia
or the members of the militia.
...}
The meaning of "Well-regulated" (Larry Cipriani) (yarchive.net)

Definition of REGULATE

to govern or direct according to rule; to bring under the control of law or constituted authority; to make regulations for or concerning… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[miketx]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

Total bullshit and you know it.

 

[White 6]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

All of those definitions actually mean to "facilitate".
Why do you bring under the control of law? It is to ensure it is not impeded.
Why do you make regulations? It is so that no one can interfere.
When you regulate tire pressure, it is to ensure the tire does not go flat and stop working.
A "well regulated clock" is one that is well functioning, not one that is restricted.

Read history on the original meaning of "well regulated".
{...
On the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment
Henry E. Schaffer

"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty
of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation,
and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social
Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."

These resounding words were the opening of a November 12, 1789 Act of
the North Carolina Legislature which was passed on December 11, 1789 and
which chartered the University of North Carolina. Noting that this Act
was contemporaneous with the Bill of Rights (which was transmitted to the
state legislatures on September 25, 1789) and that the North Carolina
Legislature was active at that time, North Carolina being one of the
original 13 states, let us pay particular attention to the usage of the
words "well regulated" found both in this Act and in the 2nd Amendment
of the BoR. The use of "well regulated" in this act can shed some light
on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The debate between the collectivist and the individualist
interpretations of the 2nd has often focused on the meaning of "well
regulated" in the opening phrase "well regulated Militia". The
collectivists claim this this refers to a Militia which is tightly
controlled by the government, deducing this from the etymology of
"regulated" which relates to "ruled". However, this ignores the usage
of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper
operations of a device rather than to man-made laws. We still see this
in the word "regular", which in many contexts means "properly operating."

Let me give two examples of usage of the word "regulate" which have
been in existence for quite a long time and which have the same
"properly operating" interpretation.

1) Horology: The adjustment of a portable timepiece so it will keep
time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept (and
perhaps at the different temperatures which it may encounter.) A
(mechanical) wrist-watch which has been so designed and adjusted is said
to be "regulated" and likely has this word stamped or engraved on its
back-plate.

2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim.
If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling")
fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and
needs to be "re-regulated".

Both of these uses have meanings *related* to the "to rule" of
man-made laws, but are more in the nature of "to adjust to or to be in
a state of proper functioning". So a "well regulated watch" or a "well
regulated double barreled shotgun" both would have meaning of "having
been put into properly functioning condition".

From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped
militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their
own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)

The language of the NC Legislature in 1789 strengthens this
interpretation. What can "well regulated Governments" mean other
than "properly functioning Governments"? Surely it didn't and
couldn't refer to a government under the control of man-made laws, for
it is the government itself which makes these laws, and it would neither
be noble nor sensible for the Legislature to be proclaiming that it is
controlling itself.

An additional contemporaneous document which exhibits the same
meaning is the Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing
the composition of the militia and says, "To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to_acquire_the_degree_of_
perfection_which_would_entitle_them_to_the_character_of_a_
well-regulated_militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis added)

Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not
refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia
or the members of the militia.
...}
The meaning of "Well-regulated" (Larry Cipriani) (yarchive.net)

Definition of REGULATE

to govern or direct according to rule; to bring under the control of law or constituted authority; to make regulations for or concerning… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Does not impede me. Never had any problem complying with laws in general. Regulation of written in 1790 would be fine if the had the population and only the weapons of 1790.
Hey, hey! The sights for my AR build shipped today!

 

[jc456]

Does not impede me. Never had any problem complying with laws in general. Regulation of written in 1790 would be fine if the had the population and only the weapons of 1790.
Hey, hey! The sights for my AR build shipped today

You don’t get it, too funny

 

[White 6]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

Total bullshit and you know it.

View attachment 472620

No, that really is the definition, even in Texas, Mike. You can create all the brand new definitions you want but if people won't buy it, they won't buy it.

 

[Batcat]

He said he would like to see the reinstatement of the 1994 assault rifle ban. For ten years you could not buy anything like an AR-15 and the country did not suffer for it.

Or benefit from it. Couldn't buy guns here in Chicago for a long time.
Made zero difference as far as gun crime.

There was no problem buying AR-15s during the first ban. You just couldn‘t buy an AR-15 with certain cosmetic features such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip.

In fact the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban is what made the AR-15 so popular. Prior to the ban the AR-15 had a poor reputation but when shooters actually bought some they realized how useful they are. The word spread rapidly. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban backfired.

So these "military" features, by which "assault weapons" can be distinguished from "permissible" semi-automatic rifles, were identified. These included folding or collapsible stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, bayonet mounts, and grenade adapters. The original federal "assault weapons" ban defined the evil firearms as semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles with two or more of these "military features."

"Assault Weapons," "Cosmetic Features," and "Gun Control"

America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

jpfo.org

Pretty sure the ban meant you could not buy a AR-15 period, you could keep one if you bought it before the ban. This from Wikipedia..

The law also categorically banned the following makes and models of semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber:

Name of firearm	Preban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)	Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil	Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70)	Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15	Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC	Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12	Legal
Steyr AUG	Imports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22	Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12	Legal

And when companies in certain states just say "Fuck you!" and keep on making them, and people keep on buying them, then what?

How about that. My AR-15 build is from about 4 different manufacturers and not on the list, so I'm still a good guy, right?

If you had it before 1994 or got it after 2004 then ya, your good.

ARs were also legally sold from 1994 to 2004 as well.
They just could not have flash suppressors or bayonet lugs.

I remember the comments at the range when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed. The regular shooters were unhappy because of the new ban but they said, “at least they only banned firearms few people use.“

But anytime you ban something people want to use it. So a couple guys bought one of the AK-47 knockoffs and told everybody how much fun they were. Then someone bought an AR-15 and was really impressed with its accuracy. Shooters bought Glock pistols and found them very reliable. Soon it seemed everybody (except me) had an AK, an AR and a Glock. Of course they all wanted hi-cap magazines for their new weapons and those were also available during the ban as long as they were made before a certain date. Those magazines also cost a small fortune. I didn’t buy an AK, AR or a Glock as I am a dinosaur and I like revolvers, 1911 .45 Automatics and bolt action rifles.

The popularity of “assault weapons” grew during the ban so basically the ban backfired.

 

[kaz]

First of all, you're lying. A whole lot of the Democrat party, particularly the rabid left now running the party do want no guns in private hands. Joe kept saying he's a moderate, but he keeps letting the rabid left run him and the rest of you are silent. So just cut the shit private ownership of guns aren't on the way out the door and your actions are fully supporting that.

But let's pretend for a second that it isn't true. I asked you this before and you ran away and hid. What good is a gun for defense when you and your family are attacked on the street and your gun is locked in a safe at your home?

Far left not running the party. They are just making the most noise as the did not get Bernie or Warren and did not even come close. Compared to everybody else that ran on either side, especially DJT, Joe is the sole of the moderate. Nobody is coming for your guns. That was the Republican, George W. Bush in New Orleans, after Katrina. Trump was advised to declare martial law by that traitor general he pardoned, but found out he would not have been able to pull it off, so the republicans did not get to put troops on the streets across America hold a military controlled re-vote, which probably allowed us to keep our guns until the next crises as viewed from the right wing republicans, if they are in control. There is a lot of difference between Dem knowing we need to control them better and republicans putting armed troops on the street to back up the guys taking them away, mostly to never be given back, even to home owners in the upscale neighborhoods.

You're a nut job.

And obviously you're going to be silent when the left comes for our guns just like you're silent now about everything the far left does.

Also, FYI, paragraphs dude, paragraphs ...

 

[White 6]

First of all, you're lying. A whole lot of the Democrat party, particularly the rabid left now running the party do want no guns in private hands. Joe kept saying he's a moderate, but he keeps letting the rabid left run him and the rest of you are silent. So just cut the shit private ownership of guns aren't on the way out the door and your actions are fully supporting that.

But let's pretend for a second that it isn't true. I asked you this before and you ran away and hid. What good is a gun for defense when you and your family are attacked on the street and your gun is locked in a safe at your home?

Far left not running the party. They are just making the most noise as the did not get Bernie or Warren and did not even come close. Compared to everybody else that ran on either side, especially DJT, Joe is the sole of the moderate. Nobody is coming for your guns. That was the Republican, George W. Bush in New Orleans, after Katrina. Trump was advised to declare martial law by that traitor general he pardoned, but found out he would not have been able to pull it off, so the republicans did not get to put troops on the streets across America hold a military controlled re-vote, which probably allowed us to keep our guns until the next crises as viewed from the right wing republicans, if they are in control. There is a lot of difference between Dem knowing we need to control them better and republicans putting armed troops on the street to back up the guys taking them away, mostly to never be given back, even to home owners in the upscale neighborhoods.

You're a nut job.

And obviously you're going to be silent when the left comes for our guns just like you're silent now about everything the far left does.

Also, FYI, paragraphs dude, paragraphs ...

There is not a republican running the country. I tend to worry more about the people that have actually done actual mass disarming and confiscation at gunpoint in the last 16 years than somebody that never has but might try it in the future. Don't forget trump discussed declaring martial law and using the military to run another election when he lost. You think that could have happened without seizing weapons from civilians? Probably part of the reason he was told he couldn't do it, but at least he discussed in a white house strategy meeting after he lost.

 

[freyasman]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

"Intelligent regulation" means he'll support whatever Democrats propose

Bull. Some of those idiots would want to ban all guns. Don't look for me to give up mine.

And yet any "intelligent regulation" is fine with you with no definition or scope of what that means. And you vote for the people who "intelligent regulation" means no guns in private hands

Most, Democrat even, do not want to take away guns, but do want tougher gun laws. Republicans just like that overstatement because their base has to have simple little answers and buzz-phrases so they don't have to think. Seen any polls supporting no guns in private hands? No. You are used to being lied to from top of party, so you accept the lie and re-broadcast it, as you are against any regulation. Your position does not favor Americans, but is great for NRA and gun manufacturers. I bet you voted for George W. Bush back in the day, just because he was at the top of the ticket. You are aware, no doubt, after Katrina he had National Guard troops in New Orleans, pulling security for state forces of Louisiana and city forces of New Orleans going house to house taking up personal weapons, whether houses occupied by owner or empty, poor or rich, without regard to party, right. This shows me, Democrats may regulate them in our crowded society, but republicans with actually take them away and gun point. As usual your side does or has done what it falsely accuses the other side of doing. Don't continue to be a stooge for your false cause. Help shape what you think is intelligent regulation.

No, that's false.
They actually do want to take our guns and everything else from us. Their repeated behavior demonstrates that clearly.

There is nothing to talk about if you're not going to acknowledge that fundamental reality.

Come back when you got your head right.

 

[freyasman]

He said he would like to see the reinstatement of the 1994 assault rifle ban. For ten years you could not buy anything like an AR-15 and the country did not suffer for it.

Or benefit from it. Couldn't buy guns here in Chicago for a long time.
Made zero difference as far as gun crime.

There was no problem buying AR-15s during the first ban. You just couldn‘t buy an AR-15 with certain cosmetic features such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip.

In fact the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban is what made the AR-15 so popular. Prior to the ban the AR-15 had a poor reputation but when shooters actually bought some they realized how useful they are. The word spread rapidly. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban backfired.

So these "military" features, by which "assault weapons" can be distinguished from "permissible" semi-automatic rifles, were identified. These included folding or collapsible stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, bayonet mounts, and grenade adapters. The original federal "assault weapons" ban defined the evil firearms as semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles with two or more of these "military features."

"Assault Weapons," "Cosmetic Features," and "Gun Control"

America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

jpfo.org

Pretty sure the ban meant you could not buy a AR-15 period, you could keep one if you bought it before the ban. This from Wikipedia..

The law also categorically banned the following makes and models of semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber:

Name of firearm	Preban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)	Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil	Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70)	Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15	Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC	Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12	Legal
Steyr AUG	Imports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22	Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12	Legal

And when companies in certain states just say "Fuck you!" and keep on making them, and people keep on buying them, then what?

How about that. My AR-15 build is from about 4 different manufacturers and not on the list, so I'm still a good guy, right?

If you had it before 1994 or got it after 2004 then ya, your good.

ARs were also legally sold from 1994 to 2004 as well.
They just could not have flash suppressors or bayonet lugs.

Who needs to buy an AR anyway, when just about every parked police car has one in it, along with accessories and ammo?

 

[freyasman]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

Total bullshit and you know it.

View attachment 472620

No, that really is the definition, even in Texas, Mike. You can create all the brand new definitions you want but if people won't buy it, they won't buy it.

Kind of like, you can pass all the laws you want, but if people refuse to comply and dare you to do something about it, then what?

LOL

 

[White 6]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

"Intelligent regulation" means he'll support whatever Democrats propose

Bull. Some of those idiots would want to ban all guns. Don't look for me to give up mine.

And yet any "intelligent regulation" is fine with you with no definition or scope of what that means. And you vote for the people who "intelligent regulation" means no guns in private hands

Most, Democrat even, do not want to take away guns, but do want tougher gun laws. Republicans just like that overstatement because their base has to have simple little answers and buzz-phrases so they don't have to think. Seen any polls supporting no guns in private hands? No. You are used to being lied to from top of party, so you accept the lie and re-broadcast it, as you are against any regulation. Your position does not favor Americans, but is great for NRA and gun manufacturers. I bet you voted for George W. Bush back in the day, just because he was at the top of the ticket. You are aware, no doubt, after Katrina he had National Guard troops in New Orleans, pulling security for state forces of Louisiana and city forces of New Orleans going house to house taking up personal weapons, whether houses occupied by owner or empty, poor or rich, without regard to party, right. This shows me, Democrats may regulate them in our crowded society, but republicans with actually take them away and gun point. As usual your side does or has done what it falsely accuses the other side of doing. Don't continue to be a stooge for your false cause. Help shape what you think is intelligent regulation.

No, that's false.
They actually do want to take our guns and everything else from us. Their repeated behavior demonstrates that clearly.

There is nothing to talk about if you're not going to acknowledge that fundamental reality.

Come back when you got your head right.

Reality is not something you are in touch with very closely. To believe your theory Democrat gun grab, you got to believe crap from way before the cold war is taking place now. To believe my theory that the Republicans are most likely, you just have read the news from the last 16 years. It was just 2005, dude. If they have done it once in the last 20 years and got away with it, they probably will try it again, next time in crises mode while society is disrupted.

 

[White 6]

He said he would like to see the reinstatement of the 1994 assault rifle ban. For ten years you could not buy anything like an AR-15 and the country did not suffer for it.

Or benefit from it. Couldn't buy guns here in Chicago for a long time.
Made zero difference as far as gun crime.

There was no problem buying AR-15s during the first ban. You just couldn‘t buy an AR-15 with certain cosmetic features such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip.

In fact the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban is what made the AR-15 so popular. Prior to the ban the AR-15 had a poor reputation but when shooters actually bought some they realized how useful they are. The word spread rapidly. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban backfired.

So these "military" features, by which "assault weapons" can be distinguished from "permissible" semi-automatic rifles, were identified. These included folding or collapsible stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, bayonet mounts, and grenade adapters. The original federal "assault weapons" ban defined the evil firearms as semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles with two or more of these "military features."

"Assault Weapons," "Cosmetic Features," and "Gun Control"

America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

jpfo.org

Pretty sure the ban meant you could not buy a AR-15 period, you could keep one if you bought it before the ban. This from Wikipedia..

The law also categorically banned the following makes and models of semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber:

Name of firearm	Preban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)	Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil	Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70)	Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15	Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC	Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12	Legal
Steyr AUG	Imports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22	Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12	Legal

And when companies in certain states just say "Fuck you!" and keep on making them, and people keep on buying them, then what?

How about that. My AR-15 build is from about 4 different manufacturers and not on the list, so I'm still a good guy, right?

If you had it before 1994 or got it after 2004 then ya, your good.

ARs were also legally sold from 1994 to 2004 as well.
They just could not have flash suppressors or bayonet lugs.

Who needs to buy an AR anyway, when just about every parked police car has one in it, along with accessories and ammo?

Honest legal gun owning Americans buy or build theirs if they want them. I bet you are a favorite of the local police, with an attitude and values like that.

 

[miketx]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

Total bullshit and you know it.

View attachment 472620

No, that really is the definition, even in Texas, Mike. You can create all the brand new definitions you want but if people won't buy it, they won't buy it.

Stupid people never do buy reality. Fact is the reality of stopping mass shootings is to be armed and shoot the insane scum before they kill a large group.

 

[White 6]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

I would have thorough background checks on all weapon transfer by sale or otherwise, across the board except within direct family.There would be no rifles or shotguns on the streets of cities or town publicly carried other than for purchase or or maintenance and no magazine in the weapon even then. Only allowing in the home for home defense or on personal property and to and from ranges outside the city on private land, target practice on private land with owner permission or for hunting, but not on the city streets on some jackoff's shoulder locked and loaded.I would favor carry permit after training and testing to same extent as I already have and is done in the at least 23 other states that recognize my permit, only I think all American citizens should have the same right and opportunity under the same restrictions to have access to the same training and process and regulations now in place here with out the interference of elected local politician. If somebody wants a gun free city, let them go out and buy a bunch land and build it on their own private property. Won't bother me, but I would never move there. One thing for sure, if you cannot guarantee 100% from criminals and morons with guns, you got no business banning guns and there is no way in hell you can guarantee that.I would limit the number of weapons a person other than a licensed registered gun dealer can build and sell without becoming registered gun dealer and their builds would be required to be uniquely identifiable, instead of it being a closet side closet side hustle for people like me, who know how, to do it as unregulated business in trafficking arms. Not that I have ever built one for anybody else.I am no fan of open carry side arms, from a tactical stand point as I am against intimidating the straights more than necessary, but I can live with it, after all, I have got mine, so not intimidated. I just prefer concealed carry personally.Did that give you enough to bitch about?

Background checks do not stop criminals...they use straw buyers.......background checks are simply the Trojan horse for gun registration.Hawaii....just won at the 9th circuit...they ban concealed carry and now they can ban open carry......any mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun will be used as a way to ban guns....that is the truth.

No they help regulate the idiots. If you want to stop criminals, think of some sort or crime bill, but be ready to put up with what you get.

Since the actual meaning of "regulate" is to "facilitate", you likely are using the word wrong.For example, the constitution refers to the FCC regulating interstate traffic, and clearly that means to ensure states do not impede interstate traffic in any way.

Where is you get that? English a 2nd language to you? Here is Webster's dictionary defines "regulate": regulate
verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt
also regulated; regulating
Definition of regulate

transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire

Nothing about "facilitate" in that definition from the most standard dictionary in the English language.

Total bullshit and you know it.

View attachment 472620

No, that really is the definition, even in Texas, Mike. You can create all the brand new definitions you want but if people won't buy it, they won't buy it.

Stupid people never do buy reality. Fact is the reality of stopping mass shootings is to be armed and shoot the insane scum before they kill a large group.

Sounds good. I'll do my part if possible.

 

[kaz]

You're a nut job.

And obviously you're going to be silent when the left comes for our guns just like you're silent now about everything the far left does.

Also, FYI, paragraphs dude, paragraphs ...

There is not a republican running the country. I tend to worry more about the people that have actually done actual mass disarming and confiscation at gunpoint in the last 16 years than somebody that never has but might try it in the future. Don't forget trump discussed declaring martial law and using the military to run another election when he lost. You think that could have happened without seizing weapons from civilians? Probably part of the reason he was told he couldn't do it, but at least he discussed in a white house strategy meeting after he lost.

White 6 says: Hey guys, guys. It's all good. I'm one of you, I'm a gun owner and proud of it. Just sit silently while they take away our rights, don't sweat it. They are just being reasonable. When they outlaw guns I'll silently accept it, you should too. You're welcome ...

Hey White 6, pass. I will indeed squawk about losing my rights now

 

[kaz]

but I have no problem with intelligent regulation.

like?

"Intelligent regulation" means he'll support whatever Democrats propose

Bull. Some of those idiots would want to ban all guns. Don't look for me to give up mine.

And yet any "intelligent regulation" is fine with you with no definition or scope of what that means. And you vote for the people who "intelligent regulation" means no guns in private hands

Most, Democrat even, do not want to take away guns, but do want tougher gun laws. Republicans just like that overstatement because their base has to have simple little answers and buzz-phrases so they don't have to think. Seen any polls supporting no guns in private hands? No. You are used to being lied to from top of party, so you accept the lie and re-broadcast it, as you are against any regulation. Your position does not favor Americans, but is great for NRA and gun manufacturers. I bet you voted for George W. Bush back in the day, just because he was at the top of the ticket. You are aware, no doubt, after Katrina he had National Guard troops in New Orleans, pulling security for state forces of Louisiana and city forces of New Orleans going house to house taking up personal weapons, whether houses occupied by owner or empty, poor or rich, without regard to party, right. This shows me, Democrats may regulate them in our crowded society, but republicans with actually take them away and gun point. As usual your side does or has done what it falsely accuses the other side of doing. Don't continue to be a stooge for your false cause. Help shape what you think is intelligent regulation.

No, that's false.
They actually do want to take our guns and everything else from us. Their repeated behavior demonstrates that clearly.

There is nothing to talk about if you're not going to acknowledge that fundamental reality.

Come back when you got your head right.

Reality is not something you are in touch with very closely. To believe your theory Democrat gun grab, you got to believe crap from way before the cold war is taking place now. To believe my theory that the Republicans are most likely, you just have read the news from the last 16 years. It was just 2005, dude. If they have done it once in the last 20 years and got away with it, they probably will try it again, next time in crises mode while society is disrupted.

To know Democrats want to take our guns away, all you have to do is listen to them. But you're a fascist, what do you care ...