Reply With Quote
you're still stalling on this?
So what is your criteria for which semi auto rifles would be included. Hint: it's in the picture of the 2 mini 14 "ranch" rifles (these are not AR's) I already posted. Here it is again...
Is this weapon of war on your list of weapons to be removed from the population?
is it a semi automatic rifle?
Why yes it is. Good job.
THE STALLING
Stalling on what? I given my views, now I'm asking him about his well thought out policy proposal.
then yes
So you would prefer mass shooters have any bolt action rifle than that 10/22?
THE WILLFUL IGNORANCE
Since 1950, nearly 99% of all mass public shootings happened in gun-free zones.
any time you have a law that draws a line in the sand, there will be some funky results. age requirements for driving are arbitrary... in CA you have to be 16 to get a drivers license. its possible that when i was 16.5, i was less mature and fit to be driving than my next door neighbor who was 15.5 years old. but the law draws a line in the sand.
same with any legislation on guns. i'm ok with focus being on guns that can do the most amount of damage in as little time as possible. if that includes a dinky 10/22 instead of a more powerful bolt action, then so be it. if it turns out that we start seeing absurd amounts of mass shootings where people go into nightclubs and movie theaters with bolt action rifles and are able to take out 25+ people at a time, then perhaps we reconsider the approach then.
having laws against a class of weapon like "semi automatic rifles" is probably going to be a lot more efficient/effective than codifying and identifying every single model and every single variant of every gun that might qualify under that broader definition. some guns that you dont feel are deserving may get swept in. i think the interest in public safety is more important than the interest of some shmuck wanting to go buy that particular model of gun
Stalling on muh definitions.
He gave them to you.
What's your policy proposal again?
Do you have a point or is this just a drive by factoid from an old Chuck Woolery tweet?
Guns have changed.
"university"
I'd totally not feel threatened with that guy carrying that into a Walmart for his own protection as is his second Amendment right
guy walks into your house carrying that
your first response: hey there, fellow patriot!
All those lights and he's wearing sunglasses....
Dude's got an oath to keep!
Oh Prager U. Should have known
As long as you consider gun owners schmucks, you'll be on the losing side. Trust me on this.
And he walks right in because your door is naturally lock free.
If your door was locked there's no possible way he gets in.
Nope. He want to get rid of semi automatic weapons but not all of them. He won't give his criteria for which ones.
Haven't made one. I've said I think you should be making the case to change or eliminate the 2nd amendment since it's original intent no longer applies. And I've said that anti gunners could make a more cogent argument if they knew a bit more about guns. Which would only require spending a short time on youtube watching some videos.
THE WILLFUL IGNORANCE
What if he had his out and was standing naked in your bedroom with your wife still leaking from the vag? Would you feel threatened then and if so, would it cause you to become aroused?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions