gun control - new poll

[pknopp]

there is no legal definition of assault weapon because everything is one.

It's not about math, fuckwit.

Here: If the Supremes decided that an abortion ban was legal, and 23 states banned abortion, would you then claim that abortion bans are unconstitutional because 27 states did not have abortion bans?

Are you starting to get how retarded you sound yet?

these asshats live in their own ilttle world in their own little heads - facts, logic, and reality is futile.

But it's you asshats that are treading on our world.

I'm not the asshat willing to trade gun legislation for border control legislation , Trump is

ya f'n dumbass ..

Fascist Liberals continue to utilize hate speech urging it's followers to continue to attack and harass liberals. Calling people racists who are not racists is Hate Speech.

Missouri Firefighter stopped Snow Flake Liberal from shooting up another Walmart.

Armed off-duty firefighter halts armed suspect at Walmart store in Missouri, police say

Thursday on reports of “an armed white male.”

I'm sorry, is this not the argument that many are arguing that people need to do? Arm themselves? He harmed no one.

 

[pknopp]

Metronews has a new poll out in very pro-gun WV.

Do you support red flag laws.

Yes 51%

No 34%

Don't know 15%

 

[The Original Tree]

It's not about math, fuckwit.

Here: If the Supremes decided that an abortion ban was legal, and 23 states banned abortion, would you then claim that abortion bans are unconstitutional because 27 states did not have abortion bans?

Are you starting to get how retarded you sound yet?

these asshats live in their own ilttle world in their own little heads - facts, logic, and reality is futile.

But it's you asshats that are treading on our world.

I'm not the asshat willing to trade gun legislation for border control legislation , Trump is

ya f'n dumbass ..

Fascist Liberals continue to utilize hate speech urging it's followers to continue to attack and harass liberals. Calling people racists who are not racists is Hate Speech.

Missouri Firefighter stopped Snow Flake Liberal from shooting up another Walmart.

Armed off-duty firefighter halts armed suspect at Walmart store in Missouri, police say

Thursday on reports of “an armed white male.”

I'm sorry, is this not the argument that many are arguing that people need to do? Arm themselves? He harmed no one.

He was either a snowflake there to hurt people or he was trying to make some ill advised point that people are going to have to start arming themselves because honestly, as much as I support Law Enforcement, they can only bring Body Bags, and limit "after the fact' more casualties from occurring.

If there are guns everywhere which was the case earlier in American History, then there are No Soft Targets any where.

 

[pknopp]

these asshats live in their own ilttle world in their own little heads - facts, logic, and reality is futile.

But it's you asshats that are treading on our world.

I'm not the asshat willing to trade gun legislation for border control legislation , Trump is

ya f'n dumbass ..

Fascist Liberals continue to utilize hate speech urging it's followers to continue to attack and harass liberals. Calling people racists who are not racists is Hate Speech.

Missouri Firefighter stopped Snow Flake Liberal from shooting up another Walmart.

Armed off-duty firefighter halts armed suspect at Walmart store in Missouri, police say

Thursday on reports of “an armed white male.”

I'm sorry, is this not the argument that many are arguing that people need to do? Arm themselves? He harmed no one.

He was either a snowflake there to hurt people or he was trying to make some ill advised point that people are going to have to start arming themselves because honestly, as much as I support Law Enforcement, they can only bring Body Bags, and limit "after the fact' more casualties from occurring.

If there are guns everywhere which was the case earlier in American History, then there are No Soft Targets any where.

He was doing what many support, right?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Trump is willing too -

Poll: Majority of Republicans Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban


blood pressure medicine sales must be over the top ........

Okay I have a question. Which weapon below should be legal and which one will you want to ban?

View attachment 273401 View attachment 273402

I dont plan to buy anymore guns of any type. In fact I've given away 13 guns from the low end of my collection since Christmas, soooooooo

I DON'T GIVE A **** -

apparently, neither does Trump and the new wave of Republicans from the survey ..

deal with it princess -

I feel you are to unstable to own weapons. Just look at some of your outrageous posts. I am concerned.
Do you live in a red flag state?

OH YEAH, I'M UNSTABLE AS HELL !

RW gun nuts dressed up like soldiers playing tough guy make me nervous - slide your candy ass down to Texas and let me show you.

“RW gun nuts”?
But aren’t you Democrats doing all the killing with guns?
Baltimore, St Louis, Chicago, N.Y., Los Angeles...all blue shitholes killing the **** out of people with guns...no?

 

[Rigby5]

Okay I have a question. Which weapon below should be legal and which one will you want to ban?

View attachment 273401 View attachment 273402

It doesn't matter if it makes sense. The facts are people are going to support these bans as long as we do nothing else. They want to believe they have done something. No, it will make no difference but unless someone comes up with a different plan they are going to happen again.

And then without a better answer when those fail people are going to support even more restrictions.

Doing something to make you feel better? by disarming everyone.. You really are a ******* idiot..

Bite me. I'm simply stating what will happen. You have to make it personal because you know I'm right. You can discuss what is going to happen without supporting it.

Its never going to happen.
The people with the guns are the ones who are going to be able to say what happens.
So there will never be another assault weapons ban, for example.
Gun laws never make any sense.
The cause of all the gun violence in the US is clearly the War on Drugs, not legal guns.

That plays a large role but obviously it's not the reason for all the violence. Nobody cares that much if drug dealers take each other out.

The War on Drugs tempts poor people because of the high profits.
But they have to have guns since they can't use banks or call the police for protection.
That is where over 90% of murders in the US come from.
While there are a lot of murder/suicide lately, those people are not going to be effected by any gun law you pass.
And all federal gun laws are just inherently illegal.

Will the laws make any difference? No, but we will still do them.

Everyone should care if the War on Drugs has caused so many people to be armed, shot at, or killed.
First of all, drug dealers do not deserve to die.
They are not really doing anything wrong, and drugs are just the cheap equivalent for the poor, to expensive suba, ski, bungee jumping, mountain climbing, private planes, etc., that are far more dangerous recreation of the wealthy.
Second is that most of the people shot in drug turf wars are innocents.
Third is that Drug War guns have to be constantly accessible, so end up turning minor road rage or night club disputes into something far more deadly then they would normally be.

And I do not think we will make any new gun laws,
The SCOTUS trend is that they recognize now that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not just a prohibition against federal infringement. It is almost inevitable then that all federal gun laws eventually be struck down. There is no other possible SCOTUS interpretation.
The possible new gun laws mostly around background checks and assault weapons ban, and neither of those will be at all likely.
The claim there is a background check loophole is just a lie. You can not buy firearms over the internet, at guns shows, etc., without a background check.
The assault weapons ban will not be tolerated because there just is no such thing as an assault weapon. Historically a pair of pistols were used by mounted troops as assault weapons in the Civil War. In WWI, it was the trench pump shotgun. In WWII it was the M-1 carbine. Etc. So the reality is that any and all firearms can be used as assault weapons. There is no one specific identifying characteristic.
And clearly the intent of the founders was for Citizen Soldiers. They wanted and expected every single household to have military grade weapons. They did NOT at all want the police, (who did not even exist back then), or a professional mercenary military, to have a monopoly on military grade firearms.
So any new gun laws will be crossing the line in the sand. The result would be civil war. The SCOTUS knows this. Actually most of Congress also knows this as well. There are over 30 million assault weapons owned already, and there are dozens of companies, employing millions, who make nothing else. There clearly is no longer going to be any tolerance for new gun laws. The world is far too violent for that now.

 

[Rigby5]

Doing something to make you feel better? by disarming everyone.. You really are a ******* idiot..

Bite me. I'm simply stating what will happen. You have to make it personal because you know I'm right. You can discuss what is going to happen without supporting it.

Its never going to happen.
The people with the guns are the ones who are going to be able to say what happens.
So there will never be another assault weapons ban, for example.
Gun laws never make any sense.
The cause of all the gun violence in the US is clearly the War on Drugs, not legal guns.

That plays a large role but obviously it's not the reason for all the violence. Nobody cares that much if drug dealers take each other out.

The War on Drugs tempts poor people because of the high profits.
But they have to have guns since they can't use banks or call the police for protection.
That is where over 90% of murders in the US come from.
While there are a lot of murder/suicide lately, those people are not going to be effected by any gun law you pass.
And all federal gun laws are just inherently illegal.

Will the laws make any difference? No, but we will still do them.

How many times do hateful treasonous murder supporting liberal scum have to see defenseless people gunned down before these idiots realize being defenseless isn't the answer?

I didn't read this thread extremely closely but did anyone claim that the new laws would disarm you?

By the tone of your reply it would seem to me you take my "We" to mean one side against the other. No, it will be a bipartisan action.

Yes.
One of the main proposals is the Assault Weapons Ban, which would double the price of the most popular weapons, and put most US gun makers out of business. Assault weapons are almost all that people have been buying in the last 20 years, and are the most affordable. Worse yet is that the definition of an assault weapon is so vague that all firearms could be banned under the label of being a possible assault weapon.
So then NO, it will not be bipartisan, and the people will not stand for it.
It will mean civil war after the first innocent gun owner is shot by BATF.

 

[Darkwind]

Trump is willing too -

Poll: Majority of Republicans Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban


blood pressure medicine sales must be over the top ........

Real gun control

 

[Rigby5]

Metronews has a new poll out in very pro-gun WV.

Do you support red flag laws.

Yes 51%

No 34%

Don't know 15%

Laws are not a popularity contest.
If 60% of the population wanted to enslave 10% of the population, could they pass a law to do that?
No, because law is based on rights and principles that have nothing at all to do with opinion.
There is no legal basis for ANY federal weapons legislation at all.
And there is no proposed gun control legislation that is even remotely legal.
It would be civil war if anyone does try to pass any additional gun legislation.

 

[pknopp]

It doesn't matter if it makes sense. The facts are people are going to support these bans as long as we do nothing else. They want to believe they have done something. No, it will make no difference but unless someone comes up with a different plan they are going to happen again.

And then without a better answer when those fail people are going to support even more restrictions.

Doing something to make you feel better? by disarming everyone.. You really are a ******* idiot..

Bite me. I'm simply stating what will happen. You have to make it personal because you know I'm right. You can discuss what is going to happen without supporting it.

Its never going to happen.
The people with the guns are the ones who are going to be able to say what happens.
So there will never be another assault weapons ban, for example.
Gun laws never make any sense.
The cause of all the gun violence in the US is clearly the War on Drugs, not legal guns.

That plays a large role but obviously it's not the reason for all the violence. Nobody cares that much if drug dealers take each other out.

The War on Drugs tempts poor people because of the high profits.
But they have to have guns since they can't use banks or call the police for protection.
That is where over 90% of murders in the US come from.
While there are a lot of murder/suicide lately, those people are not going to be effected by any gun law you pass.
And all federal gun laws are just inherently illegal.

Will the laws make any difference? No, but we will still do them.

Everyone should care if the War on Drugs has caused so many people to be armed, shot at, or killed.
First of all, drug dealers do not deserve to die.
They are not really doing anything wrong, and drugs are just the cheap equivalent for the poor, to expensive suba, ski, bungee jumping, mountain climbing, private planes, etc., that are far more dangerous recreation of the wealthy.
Second is that most of the people shot in drug turf wars are innocents.
Third is that Drug War guns have to be constantly accessible, so end up turning minor road rage or night club disputes into something far more deadly then they would normally be.

And I do not think we will make any new gun laws,
The SCOTUS trend is that they recognize now that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not just a prohibition against federal infringement. It is almost inevitable then that all federal gun laws eventually be struck down. There is no other possible SCOTUS interpretation.
The possible new gun laws mostly around background checks and assault weapons ban, and neither of those will be at all likely.
The claim there is a background check loophole is just a lie. You can not buy firearms over the internet, at guns shows, etc., without a background check.
The assault weapons ban will not be tolerated because there just is no such thing as an assault weapon. Historically a pair of pistols were used by mounted troops as assault weapons in the Civil War. In WWI, it was the trench pump shotgun. In WWII it was the M-1 carbine. Etc. So the reality is that any and all firearms can be used as assault weapons. There is no one specific identifying characteristic.
And clearly the intent of the founders was for Citizen Soldiers. They wanted and expected every single household to have military grade weapons. They did NOT at all want the police, (who did not even exist back then), or a professional mercenary military, to have a monopoly on military grade firearms.
So any new gun laws will be crossing the line in the sand. The result would be civil war. The SCOTUS knows this. Actually most of Congress also knows this as well. There are over 30 million assault weapons owned already, and there are dozens of companies, employing millions, who make nothing else. There clearly is no longer going to be any tolerance for new gun laws. The world is far too violent for that now.

I don't support all our drug laws and if you want to take a chance on the courts .....remember the Supreme Court noted in Heller to not take this as a blanket protection of all gun laws.

 

[pknopp]

Metronews has a new poll out in very pro-gun WV.

Do you support red flag laws.

Yes 51%

No 34%

Don't know 15%

Laws are not a popularity contest.
If 60% of the population wanted to enslave 10% of the population, could they pass a law to do that?
No, because law is based on rights and principles that have nothing at all to do with opinion.
There is no legal basis for ANY federal weapons legislation at all.
And there is no proposed gun control legislation that is even remotely legal.
It would be civil war if anyone does try to pass any additional gun legislation.

It's been done in the past and there was no civil war.

 

[Rigby5]

Doing something to make you feel better? by disarming everyone.. You really are a ******* idiot..

Bite me. I'm simply stating what will happen. You have to make it personal because you know I'm right. You can discuss what is going to happen without supporting it.

Its never going to happen.
The people with the guns are the ones who are going to be able to say what happens.
So there will never be another assault weapons ban, for example.
Gun laws never make any sense.
The cause of all the gun violence in the US is clearly the War on Drugs, not legal guns.

That plays a large role but obviously it's not the reason for all the violence. Nobody cares that much if drug dealers take each other out.

The War on Drugs tempts poor people because of the high profits.
But they have to have guns since they can't use banks or call the police for protection.
That is where over 90% of murders in the US come from.
While there are a lot of murder/suicide lately, those people are not going to be effected by any gun law you pass.
And all federal gun laws are just inherently illegal.

Will the laws make any difference? No, but we will still do them.

Everyone should care if the War on Drugs has caused so many people to be armed, shot at, or killed.
First of all, drug dealers do not deserve to die.
They are not really doing anything wrong, and drugs are just the cheap equivalent for the poor, to expensive suba, ski, bungee jumping, mountain climbing, private planes, etc., that are far more dangerous recreation of the wealthy.
Second is that most of the people shot in drug turf wars are innocents.
Third is that Drug War guns have to be constantly accessible, so end up turning minor road rage or night club disputes into something far more deadly then they would normally be.

And I do not think we will make any new gun laws,
The SCOTUS trend is that they recognize now that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not just a prohibition against federal infringement. It is almost inevitable then that all federal gun laws eventually be struck down. There is no other possible SCOTUS interpretation.
The possible new gun laws mostly around background checks and assault weapons ban, and neither of those will be at all likely.
The claim there is a background check loophole is just a lie. You can not buy firearms over the internet, at guns shows, etc., without a background check.
The assault weapons ban will not be tolerated because there just is no such thing as an assault weapon. Historically a pair of pistols were used by mounted troops as assault weapons in the Civil War. In WWI, it was the trench pump shotgun. In WWII it was the M-1 carbine. Etc. So the reality is that any and all firearms can be used as assault weapons. There is no one specific identifying characteristic.
And clearly the intent of the founders was for Citizen Soldiers. They wanted and expected every single household to have military grade weapons. They did NOT at all want the police, (who did not even exist back then), or a professional mercenary military, to have a monopoly on military grade firearms.
So any new gun laws will be crossing the line in the sand. The result would be civil war. The SCOTUS knows this. Actually most of Congress also knows this as well. There are over 30 million assault weapons owned already, and there are dozens of companies, employing millions, who make nothing else. There clearly is no longer going to be any tolerance for new gun laws. The world is far too violent for that now.

I don't support all our drug laws and if you want to take a chance on the courts .....remember the Supreme Court noted in Heller to not take this as a blanket protection of all gun laws.

I do not support ANY federal drug laws, as the 10th amendment clearly prohibits any federal health laws.
But while Heller does not absolutely incorporate the 2nd amendment as an individual right, McDonald vs Chicago does.

{...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[3] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
...}
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

 

[Rigby5]

Metronews has a new poll out in very pro-gun WV.

Do you support red flag laws.

Yes 51%

No 34%

Don't know 15%

Laws are not a popularity contest.
If 60% of the population wanted to enslave 10% of the population, could they pass a law to do that?
No, because law is based on rights and principles that have nothing at all to do with opinion.
There is no legal basis for ANY federal weapons legislation at all.
And there is no proposed gun control legislation that is even remotely legal.
It would be civil war if anyone does try to pass any additional gun legislation.

It's been done in the past and there was no civil war.

In the past, 1993, assault style weapons were rare and so incredibly expensive, that they were insignificant.
They were like $2000 for a Colt AR. But now that is almost all that people make, sell, and own any more, so you can get them for under $600 new, and less for used. There are now about 30 million of them owned by private citizens.
And the 1993 law did not actually have any effect. All that assault weapons ban did was to cause makers to leave off the bayonet lug, the flash suppressor, and to change the pistol grip into a thumb hole stock.
So no, there really was no assault weapons ban in the past.
If an attempt to pass another now is tried that would actually have any effect, then there will be blood.
It would be inevitable.
I guarantee it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

First of all, drug dealers do not deserve to die.
They are not really doing anything wrong,

the stupidity here is massive!

Just another left wing nut job who thinks crimes against people are OK and criminals who get rich from it are A-OK......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump is willing too -

Poll: Majority of Republicans Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban


blood pressure medicine sales must be over the top ........

It comes directly from the "Trump has no path to the White House" polling company too!

 

[mudwhistle]

Trump is willing too -

Poll: Majority of Republicans Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban


blood pressure medicine sales must be over the top ........

Goody......a few more mass-murders and you'll be making serious progress.

 

[Siete]

gun control opens every turn in every for/against argument -

both have extremes that boggle the mind

 

[pknopp]

Bite me. I'm simply stating what will happen. You have to make it personal because you know I'm right. You can discuss what is going to happen without supporting it.

Its never going to happen.
The people with the guns are the ones who are going to be able to say what happens.
So there will never be another assault weapons ban, for example.
Gun laws never make any sense.
The cause of all the gun violence in the US is clearly the War on Drugs, not legal guns.

That plays a large role but obviously it's not the reason for all the violence. Nobody cares that much if drug dealers take each other out.

The War on Drugs tempts poor people because of the high profits.
But they have to have guns since they can't use banks or call the police for protection.
That is where over 90% of murders in the US come from.
While there are a lot of murder/suicide lately, those people are not going to be effected by any gun law you pass.
And all federal gun laws are just inherently illegal.

Will the laws make any difference? No, but we will still do them.

Everyone should care if the War on Drugs has caused so many people to be armed, shot at, or killed.
First of all, drug dealers do not deserve to die.
They are not really doing anything wrong, and drugs are just the cheap equivalent for the poor, to expensive suba, ski, bungee jumping, mountain climbing, private planes, etc., that are far more dangerous recreation of the wealthy.
Second is that most of the people shot in drug turf wars are innocents.
Third is that Drug War guns have to be constantly accessible, so end up turning minor road rage or night club disputes into something far more deadly then they would normally be.

And I do not think we will make any new gun laws,
The SCOTUS trend is that they recognize now that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not just a prohibition against federal infringement. It is almost inevitable then that all federal gun laws eventually be struck down. There is no other possible SCOTUS interpretation.
The possible new gun laws mostly around background checks and assault weapons ban, and neither of those will be at all likely.
The claim there is a background check loophole is just a lie. You can not buy firearms over the internet, at guns shows, etc., without a background check.
The assault weapons ban will not be tolerated because there just is no such thing as an assault weapon. Historically a pair of pistols were used by mounted troops as assault weapons in the Civil War. In WWI, it was the trench pump shotgun. In WWII it was the M-1 carbine. Etc. So the reality is that any and all firearms can be used as assault weapons. There is no one specific identifying characteristic.
And clearly the intent of the founders was for Citizen Soldiers. They wanted and expected every single household to have military grade weapons. They did NOT at all want the police, (who did not even exist back then), or a professional mercenary military, to have a monopoly on military grade firearms.
So any new gun laws will be crossing the line in the sand. The result would be civil war. The SCOTUS knows this. Actually most of Congress also knows this as well. There are over 30 million assault weapons owned already, and there are dozens of companies, employing millions, who make nothing else. There clearly is no longer going to be any tolerance for new gun laws. The world is far too violent for that now.

I don't support all our drug laws and if you want to take a chance on the courts .....remember the Supreme Court noted in Heller to not take this as a blanket protection of all gun laws.

I do not support ANY federal drug laws, as the 10th amendment clearly prohibits any federal health laws.
But while Heller does not absolutely incorporate the 2nd amendment as an individual right, McDonald vs Chicago does.

{...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[3] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
...}
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[pknopp]

Metronews has a new poll out in very pro-gun WV.

Do you support red flag laws.

Yes 51%

No 34%

Don't know 15%

Laws are not a popularity contest.
If 60% of the population wanted to enslave 10% of the population, could they pass a law to do that?
No, because law is based on rights and principles that have nothing at all to do with opinion.
There is no legal basis for ANY federal weapons legislation at all.
And there is no proposed gun control legislation that is even remotely legal.
It would be civil war if anyone does try to pass any additional gun legislation.

It's been done in the past and there was no civil war.

In the past, 1993, assault style weapons were rare and so incredibly expensive,

No they weren't.

 

[jc456]

But it's you asshats that are treading on our world.

I'm not the asshat willing to trade gun legislation for border control legislation , Trump is

ya f'n dumbass ..

Fascist Liberals continue to utilize hate speech urging it's followers to continue to attack and harass liberals. Calling people racists who are not racists is Hate Speech.

Missouri Firefighter stopped Snow Flake Liberal from shooting up another Walmart.

Armed off-duty firefighter halts armed suspect at Walmart store in Missouri, police say

Thursday on reports of “an armed white male.”

I'm sorry, is this not the argument that many are arguing that people need to do? Arm themselves? He harmed no one.

He was either a snowflake there to hurt people or he was trying to make some ill advised point that people are going to have to start arming themselves because honestly, as much as I support Law Enforcement, they can only bring Body Bags, and limit "after the fact' more casualties from occurring.

If there are guns everywhere which was the case earlier in American History, then there are No Soft Targets any where.

He was doing what many support, right?

What was he doing?