Note to Gun-Control Liberals: You Can’t Handle the Truth

[NYcarbineer]

James Madison: “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Thomas Jefferson: “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, said, “To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

To those moron who say they meant muskets, well today's armed forces have modern weapons and so shall we the civilians...

They have a pussy version for you liberals...

hello kitty ar 15 - Google Search

...

Ronald Reagan banned machine guns in 1986.

Which guns on the current 'ban' list were banned by liberals?

But that's not what he did. You excel at only telling half the truth.

Lopez says Reagan banned machine guns, backed assualt weapons ban

He backed one, but never signed an assault weapons ban into law during his presidency.

He also did not ban machineguns.

He banned the buying, selling, possessing of machineguns made after 1986.

Thats also wrong.
I am amazed at people spouting off about crap they know nothing about.

Then you tell us how and where the average individual legally buys and possesses a post 1986 machinegun.

You were dead wrong the other day and then fled. Might as well make it 2 in a row.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ronald Reagan banned machine guns in 1986.

Which guns on the current 'ban' list were banned by liberals?

But that's not what he did. You excel at only telling half the truth.

Lopez says Reagan banned machine guns, backed assualt weapons ban

He backed one, but never signed an assault weapons ban into law during his presidency.

He also did not ban machineguns.

He banned the buying, selling, possessing of machineguns made after 1986.

Thats also wrong.
I am amazed at people spouting off about crap they know nothing about.

Then you tell us how and where the average individual legally buys and possesses a post 1986 machinegun.

You were dead wrong the other day and then fled. Might as well make it 2 in a row.

That isnt the claim, idiot.
Let me explain exactly what Reagan did so your pea brain can understand it, dummy.
Since 1934 and the NFA every machine gun, suppressor, short barrelled rife/shotgun or destructive device must be registered with the NFA branch of ATF. For machine guns they are registered as civilian transferrable or law enforcement only. Since July 1986 ATF will not register machine guns as civilian transferable. But it is still legal to produce, buy and sell new machine guns provided one is either a law enforcement department or a firearms dealer with a Demo letter. Since you dont know what a Demo letter is either I'll leave you to stew in that.
Ignorant dunce.

 

[Mac1958]

the only truth is over 300 million fire arms are inside our borders. The proverbial Jeanie is out of the bottle with no way to fix the issue at hand.

Yeah, I can't get past that, either.

While the OP is religion-based in its argument, I'd say that we definitely have a cultural issue at work here. Look at what's actually happening: A suicidal young person is suicidal in part because he feels alone, isolated, attacked somehow. So, instead of committing suicide, he decides to go out in what he knows will be a nationally-covered blaze of glory. Seems to me his enjoyment would be in the preparation, knowing how "famous" he's going to be.

Could he do this without guns? No, that "guns don't kill people" stuff is ridiculous. But as you point out, there are 300 million of them out there, and I don't know what law can effectively deal with that.

I think our best move is to look for answers within the culture. Somehow.
.

 

[Politico]

"This backdoor gun control would be accomplished by forcing high volume gun dealers to obtain a license to sell guns from the ATF - one of the requirements being to perform background checks on purchasers."

AFAIK, this is already a requirement for all gun dealers across all states. Something is not adding up.

They plan to use an EO to redefine "dealer" as anyone who sells 50 guns or more per year.
Note that this runs contrary to the legislative definition found in federal law.

They only way they can know who does this is universal registration.

Everything leads back to universal registration.

No one wonders why.

I am against all the Libtard gun grabbers but seriously. Why would any typical person be selling more than 50 guns a year?

All kinds of reasons. I know plenty of people who do. One guy is a cancer survivor who likes guns and this is his hobby.

Yeah if they do every year they are a dealer.

Nope, that is wrong.

Every year? No it is not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But that's not what he did. You excel at only telling half the truth.

Lopez says Reagan banned machine guns, backed assualt weapons ban

He backed one, but never signed an assault weapons ban into law during his presidency.

He also did not ban machineguns.

He banned the buying, selling, possessing of machineguns made after 1986.

Thats also wrong.
I am amazed at people spouting off about crap they know nothing about.

Then you tell us how and where the average individual legally buys and possesses a post 1986 machinegun.

You were dead wrong the other day and then fled. Might as well make it 2 in a row.

That isnt the claim, idiot.
Let me explain exactly what Reagan did so your pea brain can understand it, dummy.
Since 1934 and the NFA every machine gun, suppressor, short barrelled rife/shotgun or destructive device must be registered with the NFA branch of ATF. For machine guns they are registered as civilian transferrable or law enforcement only. Since July 1986 ATF will not register machine guns as civilian transferable. But it is still legal to produce, buy and sell new machine guns provided one is either a law enforcement department or a firearms dealer with a Demo letter. Since you dont know what a Demo letter is either I'll leave you to stew in that.
Ignorant dunce.

lol,

So I'm right. The average individual, as I said, cannot buy a post 1986.

You say that's not a gun ban.

I guess then if a law were passed that said private citizens could no longer buy handguns, unless they were made before 2016,

you wouldn't call that a gun ban? Hilarious.

 

[The Rabbi]

They plan to use an EO to redefine "dealer" as anyone who sells 50 guns or more per year.
Note that this runs contrary to the legislative definition found in federal law.

They only way they can know who does this is universal registration.

Everything leads back to universal registration.

No one wonders why.

I am against all the Libtard gun grabbers but seriously. Why would any typical person be selling more than 50 guns a year?

All kinds of reasons. I know plenty of people who do. One guy is a cancer survivor who likes guns and this is his hobby.

Yeah if they do every year they are a dealer.

Nope, that is wrong.

Every year? No it is not.

You are simply ignorant of the law. A person could sell one gun and be a dealer. He could sell 100 guns and not be.

 

[The Rabbi]

He also did not ban machineguns.

He banned the buying, selling, possessing of machineguns made after 1986.

Thats also wrong.
I am amazed at people spouting off about crap they know nothing about.

Then you tell us how and where the average individual legally buys and possesses a post 1986 machinegun.

You were dead wrong the other day and then fled. Might as well make it 2 in a row.

That isnt the claim, idiot.
Let me explain exactly what Reagan did so your pea brain can understand it, dummy.
Since 1934 and the NFA every machine gun, suppressor, short barrelled rife/shotgun or destructive device must be registered with the NFA branch of ATF. For machine guns they are registered as civilian transferrable or law enforcement only. Since July 1986 ATF will not register machine guns as civilian transferable. But it is still legal to produce, buy and sell new machine guns provided one is either a law enforcement department or a firearms dealer with a Demo letter. Since you dont know what a Demo letter is either I'll leave you to stew in that.
Ignorant dunce.

lol,

So I'm right. The average individual, as I said, cannot buy a post 1986.

You say that's not a gun ban.

I guess then if a law were passed that said private citizens could no longer buy handguns, unless they were made before 2016,

you wouldn't call that a gun ban? Hilarious.

You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"This backdoor gun control would be accomplished by forcing high volume gun dealers to obtain a license to sell guns from the ATF - one of the requirements being to perform background checks on purchasers."

AFAIK, this is already a requirement for all gun dealers across all states. Something is not adding up.

They plan to use an EO to redefine "dealer" as anyone who sells 50 guns or more per year.
Note that this runs contrary to the legislative definition found in federal law.

They only way they can know who does this is universal registration.

Everything leads back to universal registration.

No one wonders why.

I am against all the Libtard gun grabbers but seriously. Why would any typical person be selling more than 50 guns a year?

All kinds of reasons. I know plenty of people who do. One guy is a cancer survivor who likes guns and this is his hobby.

Yeah if they do every year they are a dealer.

Not according to the law that specifically defines the term.

 

[The Rabbi]

"This backdoor gun control would be accomplished by forcing high volume gun dealers to obtain a license to sell guns from the ATF - one of the requirements being to perform background checks on purchasers."

AFAIK, this is already a requirement for all gun dealers across all states. Something is not adding up.

They plan to use an EO to redefine "dealer" as anyone who sells 50 guns or more per year.
Note that this runs contrary to the legislative definition found in federal law.

They only way they can know who does this is universal registration.

Everything leads back to universal registration.

No one wonders why.

I am against all the Libtard gun grabbers but seriously. Why would any typical person be selling more than 50 guns a year?

All kinds of reasons. I know plenty of people who do. One guy is a cancer survivor who likes guns and this is his hobby.

Yeah if they do every year they are a dealer.

Not according to the law that specifically defines the term.

It is amazing to me how people spout off about crap they know nothing about. It isnt just liberals either, although they're insanely guilty of it.
I've been a licensed dealer for nearly a decade. I ought to know this stuff.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He banned the buying, selling, possessing of machineguns made after 1986.

Thats also wrong.
I am amazed at people spouting off about crap they know nothing about.

Then you tell us how and where the average individual legally buys and possesses a post 1986 machinegun.

You were dead wrong the other day and then fled. Might as well make it 2 in a row.

That isnt the claim, idiot.
Let me explain exactly what Reagan did so your pea brain can understand it, dummy.
Since 1934 and the NFA every machine gun, suppressor, short barrelled rife/shotgun or destructive device must be registered with the NFA branch of ATF. For machine guns they are registered as civilian transferrable or law enforcement only. Since July 1986 ATF will not register machine guns as civilian transferable. But it is still legal to produce, buy and sell new machine guns provided one is either a law enforcement department or a firearms dealer with a Demo letter. Since you dont know what a Demo letter is either I'll leave you to stew in that.
Ignorant dunce.

lol,

So I'm right. The average individual, as I said, cannot buy a post 1986.

You say that's not a gun ban.

I guess then if a law were passed that said private citizens could no longer buy handguns, unless they were made before 2016,

you wouldn't call that a gun ban? Hilarious.

You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats also wrong.
I am amazed at people spouting off about crap they know nothing about.

Then you tell us how and where the average individual legally buys and possesses a post 1986 machinegun.

You were dead wrong the other day and then fled. Might as well make it 2 in a row.

That isnt the claim, idiot.
Let me explain exactly what Reagan did so your pea brain can understand it, dummy.
Since 1934 and the NFA every machine gun, suppressor, short barrelled rife/shotgun or destructive device must be registered with the NFA branch of ATF. For machine guns they are registered as civilian transferrable or law enforcement only. Since July 1986 ATF will not register machine guns as civilian transferable. But it is still legal to produce, buy and sell new machine guns provided one is either a law enforcement department or a firearms dealer with a Demo letter. Since you dont know what a Demo letter is either I'll leave you to stew in that.
Ignorant dunce.

lol,

So I'm right. The average individual, as I said, cannot buy a post 1986.

You say that's not a gun ban.

I guess then if a law were passed that said private citizens could no longer buy handguns, unless they were made before 2016,

you wouldn't call that a gun ban? Hilarious.

You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

Another topic that anti-gun loons will never meaningfully address.
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then you tell us how and where the average individual legally buys and possesses a post 1986 machinegun.

You were dead wrong the other day and then fled. Might as well make it 2 in a row.

That isnt the claim, idiot.
Let me explain exactly what Reagan did so your pea brain can understand it, dummy.
Since 1934 and the NFA every machine gun, suppressor, short barrelled rife/shotgun or destructive device must be registered with the NFA branch of ATF. For machine guns they are registered as civilian transferrable or law enforcement only. Since July 1986 ATF will not register machine guns as civilian transferable. But it is still legal to produce, buy and sell new machine guns provided one is either a law enforcement department or a firearms dealer with a Demo letter. Since you dont know what a Demo letter is either I'll leave you to stew in that.
Ignorant dunce.

lol,

So I'm right. The average individual, as I said, cannot buy a post 1986.

You say that's not a gun ban.

I guess then if a law were passed that said private citizens could no longer buy handguns, unless they were made before 2016,

you wouldn't call that a gun ban? Hilarious.

You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[The Rabbi]

That isnt the claim, idiot.
Let me explain exactly what Reagan did so your pea brain can understand it, dummy.
Since 1934 and the NFA every machine gun, suppressor, short barrelled rife/shotgun or destructive device must be registered with the NFA branch of ATF. For machine guns they are registered as civilian transferrable or law enforcement only. Since July 1986 ATF will not register machine guns as civilian transferable. But it is still legal to produce, buy and sell new machine guns provided one is either a law enforcement department or a firearms dealer with a Demo letter. Since you dont know what a Demo letter is either I'll leave you to stew in that.
Ignorant dunce.

lol,

So I'm right. The average individual, as I said, cannot buy a post 1986.

You say that's not a gun ban.

I guess then if a law were passed that said private citizens could no longer buy handguns, unless they were made before 2016,

you wouldn't call that a gun ban? Hilarious.

You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

 

[2aguy]

lol,

So I'm right. The average individual, as I said, cannot buy a post 1986.

You say that's not a gun ban.

I guess then if a law were passed that said private citizens could no longer buy handguns, unless they were made before 2016,

you wouldn't call that a gun ban? Hilarious.

You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

And it did nothing to lower the gun crime rate....

 

[The Rabbi]

You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

And it did nothing to lower the gun crime rate....

Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.

It didn't happen before the ban, during the ban, or after the ban.
The 1994 AWB and the continued calls to reinstate it are prima facie evidence that anti-gun loons are only interested in further limiting the rights of the law-abiding in whatever way they can.

 

[The Rabbi]

Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.

It didn't happen before the ban, during the ban, or after the ban.
The 1994 AWB and the continued calls to reinstate it are prima facie evidence that anti-gun loons are only interested in further limiting the rights of the law-abiding in whatever way they can.

Its not about guns. It's about control.

 

[candycorn]

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

And it did nothing to lower the gun crime rate....

Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

And it did nothing to lower the gun crime rate....

Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.

Nice kids. Who are they?