Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not enough votes, period.Not enough votes yet. Gun ownership and second amendment support falls off with the under 30 demographic.
And thus, you have devolved to lying to yourself.I concede that you seem triggered.
The USSC has not upheld background checks - as such your question is irrelevant.Are background checks required by law for licensed dealers? Yes or No?
We don't necessarily need an amendment, gun reform can come from different avenues.Not enough votes, period.
Today, it takes about 15 million 'no' votes to stop an amendment, regardless the number of' yes ' votes.
That number rises proportionally with population growth - and comes from the deepest, reddest parts of the country.
And thus, you have devolved to lying to yourself.
The USSC has not upheld background checks - as such your question is irrelevant.
What "different avenues" gets around the 2nd Amendment?We don't necessarily need an amendment, gun reform can come from different avenues.
Nothing here changes the fact you need 38 states to pass an amendment, ant it takes ~15 million votes in 13 states to stop it.You're not winning with younger voters.
This is a lie.As long as background checks are the law it is upheld.
The "militia" issue was put to rest in the Heller case and reaffirmed with McDonald and Bruen.So what if you never plan to join a militia but you can pretend to be in a militia and justify why you need an AR-15
Again the second amendment isn't some talisman or forcefield. It has exactly as much power as the government, the courts and society allows. We could pass gun reform in Congress. We can change the make up the court.What "different avenues" gets around the 2nd Amendment?
You're the one that can't imagine anyone simply not caring about your interpretation of the 2nd.Nothing here changes the fact you need 38 states to pass an amendment, ant it takes ~15 million votes in 13 states to stop it.
You do not, and will not, have the numbers.
It's not. Background checks are a real thing that real licensed gun sellers have to abide by.This is a lie.
So... you can't answer the question.Again the second amendment isn't some talisman or forcefield. It has exactly as much power as the government, the courts and society allows. We could pass gun reform in Congress. We can change the make up the court.
Says he who does not understand demographics across the US a a whole and Article V of the constitution.You're the one that can't imagine anyone simply not caring about your interpretation of the 2nd.
It is.It's not.
So... you can't answer the question.
As expected.
Thanks.
I understand demgraphics just fine. Like the fact your demographic is being replaced and that white 18 year olds are already a demographic minority. Also, you keep thinking the 2nd is a forcefield that's going to protect you if we pass gun reform and start confiscating ARs.Says he who does not understand demographics across the US a a whole and Article V of the constitution.
It does not matter how many states vote to repeal the 2nd with a >90% margin, so long as 13 of them say no.
That can be done with about 15 million votes.
So it remains the law.It is.
You know the USSC has not ever once had constitutionality of background checks as a question before it, and thus, has never had the opportunity TO uphold them - much less actually done so.
No. Its just from a different than you.Thus, your statement is a lie.
As you are clearly willing to lie, there's no reason to waste any more time here.So it remains the law.
No. Its just from a different than you.
Bye bye Snowflake.As you are clearly willing to lie, there's no reason to waste any more time here.
Back on ignore.
You see, that is where you fail. According to the 2nd Amendment, I don't have to explain to you or anyone else what my reason for having one is. Run along now, busybody.
No, there isn't. I watched it, it was nothing but one big long fallacy, it did not counter the statistical evidentiary argument.
That is just fear propaganda, which hasn't included the actual statistics involved.
The point is the actual NUMBER of gun deaths, and what a ban would achieve. The proposition is, banning a particular type of gun, and what affect that would have on society?
The statistics posted, HAVE proven you wrong, and you are refusing to admit it, and then? You are just sticking your fingers in your ears, and referring members back to your dumb ass (60-minutes,) piece of establishment propaganda.
Maybe this is because you don't understand how the Constitution works, nor the great difficulty in Amending it? It has nothing to do with semi-automatic weapons, you have already been given the statistics. Maybe you need to consult with your handlers, or folks that have given you your operational agenda.
You are barking up the wrong tree here, even the comments on your video, see this, why don't you? If you are going to post some propaganda? Make sure the folks viewing it, at least agree with your agenda. All of the viewers in the comments, tore this piece of propaganda apart, and every last stupid statement they make in it. . .
View attachment 777897
The video isn't giving a "statistical evidentiary argument." Rather, it's showing damage done by an AR-15 style rifle compared to a handgun using ballistics gel experiments and points raised by trauma surgeons and gun experts. On top of that, it used methodology advised by a source shared by 2Aguy.
The counterargument is that the rifle is no different from any other firearm.
Au contraire, the topic is there is no rational reason -- I simply stated the obvious FACT of the matter. The premise is false because NO reason is called for. Run along junior.See, this is where you fail. This is a debate zone. That means you need to explain things. Why? Because that's what people do in debates.
And if you're not interested in debates, then don't participate in a debate forum.
The AR15 is most certainly different from any/every other firearm!!The video isn't giving a "statistical evidentiary argument." Rather, it's showing damage done by an AR-15 style rifle compared to a handgun using ballistics gel experiments and points raised by trauma surgeons and gun experts.
The counterargument is that the rifle is no different from any other firearm.
It's them little itty bitty ones. That's why I don't have one. Or an SKS like my buddy was trying to talk me intoThe AR15 is most certainly different from any/every other firearm!!
The AR15 (typically) fires one of these rounds.
It does devastating damage to muscle and bone, liquefies organs, and reduces children to a puddle of goo, requiring authorities to use DNA to identify them.
The other is one of the most popular hunting rounds in North America.
Which is which?
Leftist scum need no reason.Every time an AR15 is used in a mass shooting - and quite often, even when they aren't - the anti-gun left, in a pre-packaged reactionary response , screams from a ban on same, complete with "information" designed to evoke an emotional response, and, they hope, gain your support for said ban.
What do they NOT tell you?
-American civilians own ~20,000,000 AR15s
-Of the 636 mas shootings in the US, 2022, 8 involved an AR15
-OF the 660 people killed in those mass shootings 54 were killed with an AR15.
[ SOURCES NOTED BELOW ]
Why do they not tell you this?
Because they know there's no sound argument for the ban they call for.
Because they know they need to prey on the emotions of the ignorant to move their ban forward
Because they know preying on the emotions of the ignorant works.
Because they don't care about mass shootings or the people in them - they just want to ban AR15s.
There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s; those who support said ban, in their responses, will demonstrate the truth of this statement.
20,000,000 AR15s:
Mass shootings as defined by:
Why even more Americans are arming up with AR-15 guns
What's behind the popularity of the AR-15, and what responsibility do gun makers have when their products are used in mass shootings?www.cnbc.com
Mass Shootings in 2022 | Gun Violence Archive
Supplemental / detailed information from;
US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation
Most gun owners are peaceful. AR-15s are not used massively to commit murder and, of course, they can't kill anyone all by themselves. You'll never be able to stop would be murderers from murdering with inanimate objects. Best to be armed to protect yourself and your loved ones.I don't think it is really the fear of inanimate object. More accurately, it is the fear of idiots, assholes, and the mentally and emotionally disturbed who have obviously chosen these object to speak violence in a massive way, they may only have thought about, until they got these "inanimate objects". We are really not that good at controlling humans, especially not with the increasing lack of self-control we are seeing across society. So, they foolishly concentrate on the most common tool used, to the almost exclusion of the humans that are the problem.
The handgun stat includes suicides.You've seen the statistics. Semi-auto rifles are used far less to murder someone, than are other weapons.
