Ted Nugent proves a shotgun is deadlier than an AR-15

[MindWars]

Excerpt from the full video Ted Nugent: The Music Made Me Do Itcoming soon to Infowars.com. Here, Ted demonstrates the killing power of a shotgun compared to an AR-15.

Ted Nugent Proves A Shotgun Is Deadlier Than An AR-15


But the terrified left doesn't want to hear that fact noooo they prefer to listen to their bs masters telling them pure bs because why they know they are that stupid and lazy.

 

[del]

unless he put it in his mouth, i'm not watching

 

[deanrd]

Cool.

 

[MindWars]

Cool.

LMFAO some of those are so funny . I've seen a few of these . I thought how stupid can you be omg i'm pissing myself laughing every time that chic hits the ground and i'n typing this.....

 

[LoneLaugher]

Excerpt from the full video Ted Nugent: The Music Made Me Do Itcoming soon to Infowars.com. Here, Ted demonstrates the killing power of a shotgun compared to an AR-15.

Ted Nugent Proves A Shotgun Is Deadlier Than An AR-15


But the terrified left doesn't want to hear that fact noooo they prefer to listen to their bs masters telling them pure bs because why they know they are that stupid and lazy.

Awesome. That's the answer.

Let's have every nutbag trade in his or her AR ( or other semi-auto killing machine) for a nice new shotgun and a box of shells.

Hell. We will throw in a pair of panties and a box of tissues.

 

[P@triot]

Don’t worry...the left is coming after the shotguns soon. This is a strategy they promote called “nudge”. They just keep taking little by little until they have it all. First it was “but we just want the ‘machine guns’ - they are ‘weapons of war’ that have no place on our streets”. They got any that weren’t grandfathered in. Now they “just” want AR-15’s (even though they are absolutely no different from standard firearms). If we let them (like we idiotically did with the fully automatics), next will be the handguns. And then they will come for the shotguns.

 

[JLW]

Ted Nugent!!?? You guys must be really desperate.

In a 1977 High Times interview, Nugent claimed to have stopped bathing a month before his draft physical, adding that he showed up for the exam with pants “crusted” with urine and feces. “I was a walking, talking hunk of human poop,” said Nugent.

This is Ted Nugent the poster boy for gun toting conservative he-men.

 

[Auld Phart]

Cool.

Cool.

Home video?

Did your shoulder hurt much afterwards?

 

[MindWars]

As a Former OBAMA secret service / body guard he tells the leftist how they all have ARMED GUARDS..

NRATV on Twitter

They are all safe , but you dumbasses you are a whole nother story ...........

 

[BULLDOG]

Excerpt from the full video Ted Nugent: The Music Made Me Do Itcoming soon to Infowars.com. Here, Ted demonstrates the killing power of a shotgun compared to an AR-15.

Ted Nugent Proves A Shotgun Is Deadlier Than An AR-15


But the terrified left doesn't want to hear that fact noooo they prefer to listen to their bs masters telling them pure bs because why they know they are that stupid and lazy.

Yes, and a stick through the eye is as deadly as a shotgun at close range. What was your point?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Excerpt from the full video Ted Nugent: The Music Made Me Do Itcoming soon to Infowars.com. Here, Ted demonstrates the killing power of a shotgun compared to an AR-15.

Ted Nugent Proves A Shotgun Is Deadlier Than An AR-15


But the terrified left doesn't want to hear that fact noooo they prefer to listen to their bs masters telling them pure bs because why they know they are that stupid and lazy.

Yes, and a stick through the eye is as deadly as a shotgun at close range. What was your point?

The point is, there are firearms out there that will do more damage than an AR-15 so going after the semi-automatic firearms is pointless. You honestly didn't get that?

 

[BULLDOG]

Excerpt from the full video Ted Nugent: The Music Made Me Do Itcoming soon to Infowars.com. Here, Ted demonstrates the killing power of a shotgun compared to an AR-15.

Ted Nugent Proves A Shotgun Is Deadlier Than An AR-15


But the terrified left doesn't want to hear that fact noooo they prefer to listen to their bs masters telling them pure bs because why they know they are that stupid and lazy.

Yes, and a stick through the eye is as deadly as a shotgun at close range. What was your point?

The point is, there are firearms out there that will do more damage than an AR-15 so going after the semi-automatic firearms is pointless. You honestly didn't get that?

Kinda depends on the situation the gun is being used in doesn't it? A shot gun would have been useless in Las Vegas, wouldn't it? 350 ft above the ground and 1050 feet from the target .A shot gun would have never reached them. Try again.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Excerpt from the full video Ted Nugent: The Music Made Me Do Itcoming soon to Infowars.com. Here, Ted demonstrates the killing power of a shotgun compared to an AR-15.

Ted Nugent Proves A Shotgun Is Deadlier Than An AR-15


But the terrified left doesn't want to hear that fact noooo they prefer to listen to their bs masters telling them pure bs because why they know they are that stupid and lazy.

Yes, and a stick through the eye is as deadly as a shotgun at close range. What was your point?

The point is, there are firearms out there that will do more damage than an AR-15 so going after the semi-automatic firearms is pointless. You honestly didn't get that?

Kinda depends on the situation the gun is being used in doesn't it? A shot gun would have been useless in Las Vegas, wouldn't it? 350 ft above the ground and 1050 feet from the target .A shot gun would have never reached them. Try again.

To begin with, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with him. I was merely pointing out, what to me, was the obvious purpose of the video which was to show that a shotgun with buckshot is just as, or more deadly than the AR-15.

Having said that, any idiot knows that a shotgun would have been useless in the Vegas shooting. However, according to the Wikipedia article that lists the twenty deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., the only one that was perpetrated from a distance like the Vegas shooting was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966. Of the other nineteen shootings, only three were perpetrated out of doors. All the others were close quarters shootings with most of them taking place inside buildings. Also, of the three that were perpetrated out of doors, one - the Camden shooting of 1949 - was committed solely with a handgun that achieved the same body count as one of the other outdoor shootings - the Wilkes-Barre, PA shooting in 1982 - in which a semi-auto rifle was used.

In addition to all this, of the total twenty deadliest shootings, handguns were solely used in eight of them with the worst one being the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 with a body count of 32. That's almost twice the number that Cruz killed with a semi-auto rifle.

Try again.

 

[BULLDOG]

Excerpt from the full video Ted Nugent: The Music Made Me Do Itcoming soon to Infowars.com. Here, Ted demonstrates the killing power of a shotgun compared to an AR-15.

Ted Nugent Proves A Shotgun Is Deadlier Than An AR-15


But the terrified left doesn't want to hear that fact noooo they prefer to listen to their bs masters telling them pure bs because why they know they are that stupid and lazy.

Yes, and a stick through the eye is as deadly as a shotgun at close range. What was your point?

The point is, there are firearms out there that will do more damage than an AR-15 so going after the semi-automatic firearms is pointless. You honestly didn't get that?

Kinda depends on the situation the gun is being used in doesn't it? A shot gun would have been useless in Las Vegas, wouldn't it? 350 ft above the ground and 1050 feet from the target .A shot gun would have never reached them. Try again.

To begin with, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with him. I was merely pointing out, what to me, was the obvious purpose of the video which was to show that a shotgun with buckshot is just as, or more deadly than the AR-15.

Having said that, any idiot knows that a shotgun would have been useless in the Vegas shooting. However, according to the Wikipedia article that lists the twenty deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., the only one that was perpetrated from a distance like the Vegas shooting was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966. Of the other nineteen shootings, only three were perpetrated out of doors. All the others were close quarters shootings with most of them taking place inside buildings. Also, of the three that were perpetrated out of doors, one - the Camden shooting of 1949 - was committed solely with a handgun that achieved the same body count as one of the other outdoor shootings - the Wilkes-Barre, PA shooting in 1982 - in which a semi-auto rifle was used.

In addition to all this, of the total twenty deadliest shootings, handguns were solely used in eight of them with the worst one being the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 with a body count of 32. That's almost twice the number that Cruz killed with a semi-auto rifle.

Try again.

The AR15 is better suited for killing large amounts of people in as short a time as possible in a wider range of environments than pistols or shotguns. The military determined that, and I trust their judgement.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Excerpt from the full video Ted Nugent: The Music Made Me Do Itcoming soon to Infowars.com. Here, Ted demonstrates the killing power of a shotgun compared to an AR-15.

Ted Nugent Proves A Shotgun Is Deadlier Than An AR-15


But the terrified left doesn't want to hear that fact noooo they prefer to listen to their bs masters telling them pure bs because why they know they are that stupid and lazy.

Yes, and a stick through the eye is as deadly as a shotgun at close range. What was your point?

The point is, there are firearms out there that will do more damage than an AR-15 so going after the semi-automatic firearms is pointless. You honestly didn't get that?

Kinda depends on the situation the gun is being used in doesn't it? A shot gun would have been useless in Las Vegas, wouldn't it? 350 ft above the ground and 1050 feet from the target .A shot gun would have never reached them. Try again.

To begin with, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with him. I was merely pointing out, what to me, was the obvious purpose of the video which was to show that a shotgun with buckshot is just as, or more deadly than the AR-15.

Having said that, any idiot knows that a shotgun would have been useless in the Vegas shooting. However, according to the Wikipedia article that lists the twenty deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., the only one that was perpetrated from a distance like the Vegas shooting was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966. Of the other nineteen shootings, only three were perpetrated out of doors. All the others were close quarters shootings with most of them taking place inside buildings. Also, of the three that were perpetrated out of doors, one - the Camden shooting of 1949 - was committed solely with a handgun that achieved the same body count as one of the other outdoor shootings - the Wilkes-Barre, PA shooting in 1982 - in which a semi-auto rifle was used.

In addition to all this, of the total twenty deadliest shootings, handguns were solely used in eight of them with the worst one being the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 with a body count of 32. That's almost twice the number that Cruz killed with a semi-auto rifle.

Try again.

The AR15 is better suited for killing large amounts of people in as short a time as possible in a wider range of environments than pistols or shotguns. The military determined that, and I trust their judgement.

You'll have to provide me with a source or a link for that. Not that I doubt it, but just so I can see what the overall conclusion is.

But anyway, first of all, the military doesn't use the AR-15. Secondly, military soldiers are trained to use these weapons (M16s) with as much skill as possible. Thirdly, most military combat takes place in the open so pistols and shotguns are useless in these environments and it would be silly to compare the two. Fourthly, an M16 may serve the purpose in close quarters combat but soldiers have other people shooting back. A mass shooter does not.

Also, unlike a soldier, a mass shooter can always choose his battleground. This is precisely why they choose schools, restaurants and offices to get the maximum kill effect. And, again, given that handguns were used in some of the worst shootings, it's all pretty much academic.

What concerns myself and a lot of gun owners about all this is that we all know that if they ban semi-autos, it won't stop there. That would be the wedge to open the door and set a precedent to justify future bans. No one on this side of the gun debate aisle is fooled for one minute by conciliatory and concessionary rhetoric. We know that ultimately they want to ban firearms altogether.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, and a stick through the eye is as deadly as a shotgun at close range. What was your point?

The point is, there are firearms out there that will do more damage than an AR-15 so going after the semi-automatic firearms is pointless. You honestly didn't get that?

Kinda depends on the situation the gun is being used in doesn't it? A shot gun would have been useless in Las Vegas, wouldn't it? 350 ft above the ground and 1050 feet from the target .A shot gun would have never reached them. Try again.

To begin with, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with him. I was merely pointing out, what to me, was the obvious purpose of the video which was to show that a shotgun with buckshot is just as, or more deadly than the AR-15.

Having said that, any idiot knows that a shotgun would have been useless in the Vegas shooting. However, according to the Wikipedia article that lists the twenty deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., the only one that was perpetrated from a distance like the Vegas shooting was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966. Of the other nineteen shootings, only three were perpetrated out of doors. All the others were close quarters shootings with most of them taking place inside buildings. Also, of the three that were perpetrated out of doors, one - the Camden shooting of 1949 - was committed solely with a handgun that achieved the same body count as one of the other outdoor shootings - the Wilkes-Barre, PA shooting in 1982 - in which a semi-auto rifle was used.

In addition to all this, of the total twenty deadliest shootings, handguns were solely used in eight of them with the worst one being the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 with a body count of 32. That's almost twice the number that Cruz killed with a semi-auto rifle.

Try again.

The AR15 is better suited for killing large amounts of people in as short a time as possible in a wider range of environments than pistols or shotguns. The military determined that, and I trust their judgement.

You'll have to provide me with a source or a link for that. Not that I doubt it, but just so I can see what the overall conclusion is.

But anyway, first of all, the military doesn't use the AR-15. Secondly, military soldiers are trained to use these weapons (M16s) with as much skill as possible. Thirdly, most military combat takes place in the open so pistols and shotguns are useless in these environments and it would be silly to compare the two. Fourthly, an M16 may serve the purpose in close quarters combat but soldiers have other people shooting back. A mass shooter does not.

Also, unlike a soldier, a mass shooter can always choose his battleground. This is precisely why they choose schools, restaurants and offices to get the maximum kill effect. And, again, given that handguns were used in some of the worst shootings, it's all pretty much academic.

What concerns myself and a lot of gun owners about all this is that we all know that if they ban semi-autos, it won't stop there. That would be the wedge to open the door and set a precedent to justify future bans. No one on this side of the gun debate aisle is fooled for one minute by conciliatory and concessionary rhetoric. We know that ultimately they want to ban firearms altogether.

You're exaggerating the situation. There is no credible effort to ban all semi auto guns any more than there is to ban all guns. That is just a lie told by the NRA to scare weak minded gun nuts.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The point is, there are firearms out there that will do more damage than an AR-15 so going after the semi-automatic firearms is pointless. You honestly didn't get that?

Kinda depends on the situation the gun is being used in doesn't it? A shot gun would have been useless in Las Vegas, wouldn't it? 350 ft above the ground and 1050 feet from the target .A shot gun would have never reached them. Try again.

To begin with, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with him. I was merely pointing out, what to me, was the obvious purpose of the video which was to show that a shotgun with buckshot is just as, or more deadly than the AR-15.

Having said that, any idiot knows that a shotgun would have been useless in the Vegas shooting. However, according to the Wikipedia article that lists the twenty deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., the only one that was perpetrated from a distance like the Vegas shooting was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966. Of the other nineteen shootings, only three were perpetrated out of doors. All the others were close quarters shootings with most of them taking place inside buildings. Also, of the three that were perpetrated out of doors, one - the Camden shooting of 1949 - was committed solely with a handgun that achieved the same body count as one of the other outdoor shootings - the Wilkes-Barre, PA shooting in 1982 - in which a semi-auto rifle was used.

In addition to all this, of the total twenty deadliest shootings, handguns were solely used in eight of them with the worst one being the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 with a body count of 32. That's almost twice the number that Cruz killed with a semi-auto rifle.

Try again.

The AR15 is better suited for killing large amounts of people in as short a time as possible in a wider range of environments than pistols or shotguns. The military determined that, and I trust their judgement.

You'll have to provide me with a source or a link for that. Not that I doubt it, but just so I can see what the overall conclusion is.

But anyway, first of all, the military doesn't use the AR-15. Secondly, military soldiers are trained to use these weapons (M16s) with as much skill as possible. Thirdly, most military combat takes place in the open so pistols and shotguns are useless in these environments and it would be silly to compare the two. Fourthly, an M16 may serve the purpose in close quarters combat but soldiers have other people shooting back. A mass shooter does not.

Also, unlike a soldier, a mass shooter can always choose his battleground. This is precisely why they choose schools, restaurants and offices to get the maximum kill effect. And, again, given that handguns were used in some of the worst shootings, it's all pretty much academic.

What concerns myself and a lot of gun owners about all this is that we all know that if they ban semi-autos, it won't stop there. That would be the wedge to open the door and set a precedent to justify future bans. No one on this side of the gun debate aisle is fooled for one minute by conciliatory and concessionary rhetoric. We know that ultimately they want to ban firearms altogether.

You're exaggerating the situation. There is no credible effort to ban all semi auto guns any more than there is to ban all guns. That is just a lie told by the NRA to scare weak minded gun nuts.

First of all, I have no idea what the NRA says because I'm not a member and I don't keep up with their goings on. Secondly, I'm not merely repeating things other gun owners are saying, I'm speaking from experience of observing human nature. Human nature dictates that they will always look for the easiest solution and convince themselves it will work even though most of the time the easy solution never works in the long run and they know this.

What is likely to happen is that there will be more shootings with more subsequent rallies and campaigns to ban semi-autos until the government finally breaks and grants it. They'll be happy and do a celebratory jig and revel in their moral victory. For awhile. Then, inevitably, there will be another mass shooting either with an illegally obtained semi-auto or a pistol and/or shotgun. They'll know then that banning semi-autos didn't work but they'll never admit it. So they'll say that all firearms are the problem but will only push for a ban on handguns for now. When that doesn't work they'll say, "Well, we should have went for a total ban the last time" and therefore push for a total ban.

They will never admit that the root of the problem is cultural and a result of bad or absent parenting, among other things, because that's not an easy fix. You can't pass a law that will fix bad parenting or repair the culture.

 

[yidnar]

a sawed off 12 guage pump shot gun with single or double ought buckshot
unloaded on a room full of people would kill a lot of people in just 5 shots !!

 

[BULLDOG]

Kinda depends on the situation the gun is being used in doesn't it? A shot gun would have been useless in Las Vegas, wouldn't it? 350 ft above the ground and 1050 feet from the target .A shot gun would have never reached them. Try again.

To begin with, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with him. I was merely pointing out, what to me, was the obvious purpose of the video which was to show that a shotgun with buckshot is just as, or more deadly than the AR-15.

Having said that, any idiot knows that a shotgun would have been useless in the Vegas shooting. However, according to the Wikipedia article that lists the twenty deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., the only one that was perpetrated from a distance like the Vegas shooting was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966. Of the other nineteen shootings, only three were perpetrated out of doors. All the others were close quarters shootings with most of them taking place inside buildings. Also, of the three that were perpetrated out of doors, one - the Camden shooting of 1949 - was committed solely with a handgun that achieved the same body count as one of the other outdoor shootings - the Wilkes-Barre, PA shooting in 1982 - in which a semi-auto rifle was used.

In addition to all this, of the total twenty deadliest shootings, handguns were solely used in eight of them with the worst one being the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 with a body count of 32. That's almost twice the number that Cruz killed with a semi-auto rifle.

Try again.

The AR15 is better suited for killing large amounts of people in as short a time as possible in a wider range of environments than pistols or shotguns. The military determined that, and I trust their judgement.

You'll have to provide me with a source or a link for that. Not that I doubt it, but just so I can see what the overall conclusion is.

But anyway, first of all, the military doesn't use the AR-15. Secondly, military soldiers are trained to use these weapons (M16s) with as much skill as possible. Thirdly, most military combat takes place in the open so pistols and shotguns are useless in these environments and it would be silly to compare the two. Fourthly, an M16 may serve the purpose in close quarters combat but soldiers have other people shooting back. A mass shooter does not.

Also, unlike a soldier, a mass shooter can always choose his battleground. This is precisely why they choose schools, restaurants and offices to get the maximum kill effect. And, again, given that handguns were used in some of the worst shootings, it's all pretty much academic.

What concerns myself and a lot of gun owners about all this is that we all know that if they ban semi-autos, it won't stop there. That would be the wedge to open the door and set a precedent to justify future bans. No one on this side of the gun debate aisle is fooled for one minute by conciliatory and concessionary rhetoric. We know that ultimately they want to ban firearms altogether.

You're exaggerating the situation. There is no credible effort to ban all semi auto guns any more than there is to ban all guns. That is just a lie told by the NRA to scare weak minded gun nuts.

First of all, I have no idea what the NRA says because I'm not a member and I don't keep up with their goings on. Secondly, I'm not merely repeating things other gun owners are saying, I'm speaking from experience of observing human nature. Human nature dictates that they will always look for the easiest solution and convince themselves it will work even though most of the time the easy solution never works in the long run and they know this.

What is likely to happen is that there will be more shootings with more subsequent rallies and campaigns to ban semi-autos until the government finally breaks and grants it. They'll be happy and do a celebratory jig and revel in their moral victory. For awhile. Then, inevitably, there will be another mass shooting either with an illegally obtained semi-auto or a pistol and/or shotgun. They'll know then that banning semi-autos didn't work but they'll never admit it. So they'll say that all firearms are the problem but will only push for a ban on handguns for now. When that doesn't work they'll say, "Well, we should have went for a total ban the last time" and therefore push for a total ban.

They will never admit that the root of the problem is cultural and a result of bad or absent parenting, among other things, because that's not an easy fix. You can't pass a law that will fix bad parenting or repair the culture.

Again, you reference your unfounded fear that there is a credible possibility that all semi auto guns will be banned. That's just nuts.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

To begin with, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with him. I was merely pointing out, what to me, was the obvious purpose of the video which was to show that a shotgun with buckshot is just as, or more deadly than the AR-15.

Having said that, any idiot knows that a shotgun would have been useless in the Vegas shooting. However, according to the Wikipedia article that lists the twenty deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., the only one that was perpetrated from a distance like the Vegas shooting was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966. Of the other nineteen shootings, only three were perpetrated out of doors. All the others were close quarters shootings with most of them taking place inside buildings. Also, of the three that were perpetrated out of doors, one - the Camden shooting of 1949 - was committed solely with a handgun that achieved the same body count as one of the other outdoor shootings - the Wilkes-Barre, PA shooting in 1982 - in which a semi-auto rifle was used.

In addition to all this, of the total twenty deadliest shootings, handguns were solely used in eight of them with the worst one being the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 with a body count of 32. That's almost twice the number that Cruz killed with a semi-auto rifle.

Try again.

The AR15 is better suited for killing large amounts of people in as short a time as possible in a wider range of environments than pistols or shotguns. The military determined that, and I trust their judgement.

You'll have to provide me with a source or a link for that. Not that I doubt it, but just so I can see what the overall conclusion is.

But anyway, first of all, the military doesn't use the AR-15. Secondly, military soldiers are trained to use these weapons (M16s) with as much skill as possible. Thirdly, most military combat takes place in the open so pistols and shotguns are useless in these environments and it would be silly to compare the two. Fourthly, an M16 may serve the purpose in close quarters combat but soldiers have other people shooting back. A mass shooter does not.

Also, unlike a soldier, a mass shooter can always choose his battleground. This is precisely why they choose schools, restaurants and offices to get the maximum kill effect. And, again, given that handguns were used in some of the worst shootings, it's all pretty much academic.

What concerns myself and a lot of gun owners about all this is that we all know that if they ban semi-autos, it won't stop there. That would be the wedge to open the door and set a precedent to justify future bans. No one on this side of the gun debate aisle is fooled for one minute by conciliatory and concessionary rhetoric. We know that ultimately they want to ban firearms altogether.

You're exaggerating the situation. There is no credible effort to ban all semi auto guns any more than there is to ban all guns. That is just a lie told by the NRA to scare weak minded gun nuts.

First of all, I have no idea what the NRA says because I'm not a member and I don't keep up with their goings on. Secondly, I'm not merely repeating things other gun owners are saying, I'm speaking from experience of observing human nature. Human nature dictates that they will always look for the easiest solution and convince themselves it will work even though most of the time the easy solution never works in the long run and they know this.

What is likely to happen is that there will be more shootings with more subsequent rallies and campaigns to ban semi-autos until the government finally breaks and grants it. They'll be happy and do a celebratory jig and revel in their moral victory. For awhile. Then, inevitably, there will be another mass shooting either with an illegally obtained semi-auto or a pistol and/or shotgun. They'll know then that banning semi-autos didn't work but they'll never admit it. So they'll say that all firearms are the problem but will only push for a ban on handguns for now. When that doesn't work they'll say, "Well, we should have went for a total ban the last time" and therefore push for a total ban.

They will never admit that the root of the problem is cultural and a result of bad or absent parenting, among other things, because that's not an easy fix. You can't pass a law that will fix bad parenting or repair the culture.

Again, you reference your unfounded fear that there is a credible possibility that all semi auto guns will be banned. That's just nuts.

I have to ask: What makes you so sure they won't ban semi-autos?