Reply With Quote
AR-15s result in a miniscule amount of murders in America. There is no legitimate argument against them.
Don't worry though, half these crossdressers have no idea what muh Cons ution says. They've got the annotated version from pastor Alex Jones.
AR-15s result in a miniscule amount of murders in America. There is no legitimate argument against them.
And back to the love it or leave it fallacy
What's the legitimate argument for them besides coyotes?
Mid seems to be arguing for more access to more firepower. Yes, the government has more weapons that are more powerful. In recognition of that it's moronic to make citizens even weaker against that reality.
Limiting the AR-15s proliferation isn't about reducing overall gun deaths, it's about reducing mass murders. Dynamite has always caused a "miniscule amount of deaths in America" but you can't just walk into a hardware store and pick a few sticks up. Why is that? Because we know if someone wanted to, they could cause a of a lot of damage very quickly with it.
Lol. A bunch (even millions of them) of rednecks with some AR-15s against the US military might as well not be any defense at all.
And I don't want more access to firepower. I'm saying your 2nd amendment right is "infringed upon" and you don't even know it. What's one more weapon platform (in this case, AR-15s) restricted in the grand scheme of what is already restricted? And to clarify, restricted doesn't mean prohibited. Possession of AR-15s and the like should be restricted to proven, responsible gun owners. Some 18 year old alt-right got shouldn't be able to walk into a gun shop and buy one.
There is no demand for dynamite in a hardware store.
Mass murders with AR-15s are also rare. Still not a legitimate reason to take rights away from law abiding Americans.
That ship sailed though. I would argue it's moronic to pretend citizens could ever stand up to the government at this point. It's actually double-moronic to attempt to intimidate lawmakers with violence during democratic times.
If the lawmakers are intimidated then perhaps get lawmakers with more courage.
Yeah, that ship has sailed a long time ago. Remember Portland or whatever the was that BLM thing was during the previous admin?
I have zero problems with the 2nd amendment for home defense, or even hunting/sports... using it for intimidation is a different situation though, but I think it speaks much louder about the impotence of a very small minority.
It's not the lawmakers' problem that we have a very tiny minority that feels like threatening them. Not the first time either, see The Mulford Act. Perfectly legal too.
We gonna need those AR-15's to stop government tyranny and communist takeover of America. It has already begun.
I would gladly leave seeing the way this country is becoming a communist hole because of a hoax virus that you believe in cuz daddy Trump and the GOP say it's real. Also they closed down the borders cuz they wanna keep us trapped here.
That's how the left thinks. They love big government to save lives. SMH at closing down meat plants because of a stupid hoax virus in the name of saving lives.The authoritarian leftists praising their blueprint country for authoritarian decisions. I'm shocked.
"We just want common sense gun control."
That's the same reason the elites use to open up the borders to "save lives."
Stay home, save lives.
How ing stupid can people be? How much more will we tolerate this crap?
It never has begun. There's no 'revolution' coming.
If they are intimidated by those people then they are weak lawmakers tbh
Clearly the intimidation didn't work, that points to them not being weak at all, and distracts from the real issue here: this minority not understanding how democracy works.
They support the same logic behind "stop and frisk" without realizing it.
I mean why do we "need" the ability to be in public without a little safety frisk to save lives? It's for the greater good.
Then it's not worth discussing as a problem.
That'd be convenient only if you're one of those re s. Democracy is always worth discussing.
Carrying a gun around doesn't stop democracy.
Intimidating politicians with weapons because you don't like the laws is certainly damaging to democracy, especially if they can get away with it.
Fortunately they didn't this time.
What? That's where it was originally sold back in the day. There's "no demand" because hardware stores aren't allowed to sell it anymore. If hardware stores could, every redneck Tom, , and Harry would buy that up to blow up for fun.
Mass murders with explosives are also rare. So why do we take the rights away from "law abiding" citizens to own C4? You know why. Because a bad actor can cause a load of deaths with it. Just the same with an AR-15 and a 100 round drum mag.
If you are intimidated by people carrying guns then you should not be a politician. They were intimidated as you've already said. I see no problem. I also see no problem choosing to defy that law.
One man unilaterally making this decision.
Cuck-uh-duh
Sure, I was thinking the average hardware store across America. I'm sure there would be demand in select areas.
Mass murders with explosives are also rare. So why do we take the rights away from "law abiding" citizens to own C4? You know why. Because a bad actor can cause a load of deaths with it. Just the same with an AR-15 and a 100 round drum mag.
Well that currently not a problem because these things are rare. Further people go through a process to get guns it's not just going into a store and picking something up. People can also get access to dynamite through a process. Seems everything is pretty effective with regards to the guns.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions