Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

This thread is 10 days shy of 12 years old

Progressives have been trying to destroy American freedom for a long time now.

0 Replies

@revelette3,

revelette3 wrote:

I agree there is no talking to the gun cult

So instead of talking, we'll just defeat you instead.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

No, it's your utterly irrelevant "just as dead" delusion.

It is not a delusion that people who are killed with poison are just as dead as people who are killed with guns. They really are just as dead.

Your failure to explain why it matters that someone was killed one way and not another shows that the question is quite relevant.

MontereyJack wrote:

the relevant term is "dead by gun violence" again and again and again and again.

So what? They'd be just as dead if they were smothered with pillows.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I saw a comment recently where someone said that yes, he'd support a ban on any device which could direct dozens of knives at a target in less than a minute.

But then the guy listened to progressives and decided that instead of pushing for such a ban, he'd just try to outlaw pistol grips.

Consequently, his ban never happened.

What's the moral to that story?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Biden is supposed to be working on executive orders for some gun control,

How about an executive order requiring all cars be colored gray? That would show how much he cares about preventing drunk driving.

MontereyJack wrote:

gun lobby murderous roadblockers,

Preventing you from outlawing pistol grips does not cause a single murder.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

stricter gun control is backed by a substantial majority of americans, which is one reason SCOTUS has trodden lightly s not tried the jackboot approach on it.

"Stricter gun control" is a slogan without meaning.

How about a concrete and specific gun control proposal?

MontereyJack wrote:

Trump packed the court with right wingers,

No he didn't. There are still only nine justices.

MontereyJack wrote:

but so far they seem to be waiting a consensus to develop

Not really. They tried to weigh in recently but were tricked by the progressive justices.

It is unlikely that they will fall for the same trick twice, and now there is one less progressive and one more conservative.

MontereyJack wrote:

and have let state bans on assault style weapons stand.

Not assault weapons. Those were restricted nearly 90 years ago. You are referring to pistol grips.

The longer progressives violate people's civil liberties for fun, the more they will have to compensate their victims before I'll agree to support any new gun control.

MontereyJack wrote:

so go, joe. exec order the hell out of them.

You do realize that there is very little that an executive order can achieve?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

want a concrete gun proposal? Here's one: ban all semiautomatic guns with detachable magazines, with mandatory buyback. NZ has done it and it works.No more Christchurch mosqiue shootings murdersfrom Aussie gun nuts for NZ.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

by your own count, you recognize trump packed the court, as i said.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

give us a ******* break, they have been called assasult weapons for more than a quarter century and thast's's what they are known as. stopbeing a clueless peadant. . you do not get to define the use of the language. and in pooint of fact they are pretty good assault weapons. If the CSA had a couple dozen AR-15s at pickett's charge at gettysburg, we'd be living in the CSA today.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

It's all about putting out the most lead in the shortest period of time!

1 Reply

@BillW,

And that's why semi-auto-only weapons are not assault weapons.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

give us a ******* break, they have been called assault weapons for more than a quarter century and that's what they are known as.

That is incorrect. Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.

This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

MontereyJack wrote:

stop being a clueless pedant.

Challenging your misuse of the language is neither clueless nor pedantic.

MontereyJack wrote:

you do not get to define the use of the language.

Neither do you. And unlike you, I'm not trying to do so.

MontereyJack wrote:

and in point of fact they are pretty good assault weapons.

That is incorrect. Semi-auto-only weapons are unable to fire in full-auto or burst fire.

MontereyJack wrote:

If the CSA had a couple dozen AR-15s at pickett's charge at gettysburg, we'd be living in the CSA today.

Not if the Union was equipped with actual assault weapons.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

by your own count, you recognize trump packed the court, as i said.

There are still only nine judges on the Supreme Court. Packing the courts means expanding the number of judges.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

want a concrete gun proposal? Here's one: ban all semiautomatic guns with detachable magazines, with mandatory buyback.

Good for you for not focusing on pistol grips. If only you could convince the rest of the progressives to do the same.

It's too far for me to support however. I see no problem with five round detachable magazines on a rifle.

MontereyJack wrote:

NZ has done it and it works.No more Christchurch mosqiue shootings murdersfrom Aussie gun nuts for NZ.

They'd have had a similar result if they had just limited rifle magazines to five rounds.

As I recall, they also needlessly outlawed semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines. But either way they went way too far.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

They'd have had a similar result if they had just limited rifle magazines to five rounds.

Correction: They'd have had a similar result if they had just limited detachable rifle magazines to five rounds.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Good. That'll stop your endless repetition.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

The only repetition on my part is in answer to repetition from others.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Good. That'll stop your endless repetition.

Not a chance!

0 Replies

@oralloy,

No it's not.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

they would disagree, because they are far, far more sensible and far far less bloodthisty=rythan you are.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know