Assault weapons and bomb-carrying robots.....

The right just argues to avoid doing anything. We had the right laws in place, republicans undid them.


what laws was that

10 rd magazine limit.

the firearm in the Dallas cop shootings

had a 10 round limit

30 rd mags.

Exclusive: Photo of the Saiga AK-74 Rifle Used at Dallas Shooting


He was firing from a distant position moron.......10 round magaznies wouldn't have changed that at all.....moron.


hence the term sniper

which btw most use a bolt action
 
Just for fun.....apply your little scenario to that poor guy in Minnesota...or that 12 year old in Cleveland. Go on......

In the Cleveland case, the boy started to pull out a very realistic gun and the officer fired. The video tape was used as evidence on behalf of the officers defense. The Grand Jury agreed with what the officer seen and didn't indict based solely on that evidence.

In the Minnesota case, it was a Hispanic officer that pulled him over because he matched a description of a robbery suspect. The man had a gun on his lap and was told not to move a muscle. He reached his hands down towards the gun and the officer fired.

You libs just love to look at what you want and never examine the evidence. Just pre-judge according to what MSM shows you and draw their conclusions.
 
Let's take it one step further........

law enforcement agents are allowed to wear bullet-proof vests (or any type of body armor)........Gun lovers have insisted that the average American should ALSO be allowed to purchase such body armor.......So the question arises as to: WHY ???

I've never seen any "gun lovers" make such an insistence. Maybe you have a link or something?????
 
I've explained this to the tards several times.

There is a smaller percentage of Americans who own guns. That smaller percentage owns more guns than gun owners of the past used to own.

It does not matter if you own one gun or two hundred guns, you are still just one gun owner in a dwindling percentage of gun owners.

The crime rate has decreased in tandem with the decrease in the percentage of gun owners.

Gun ownership does not bring down crime alone. Since the beginning of the 90's when the decline began, more and more states adopted CCW laws. Now, CCW laws are worthless as well unless you have the laws to back you up in the event you need to use deadly force.

It's actually the laws that made more of a difference than the amount of guns. For instance, I would have no hesitation in using a gun for self-defense in my state because the laws are on my side. But even if I had a CCW in liberal meccas such as New York or California, I would be afraid to use deadly force because the laws are in favor of the criminals.
 
So, 2guy goes into a bar armed.....but he is not there to drink (he is law abiding, after all) he is there to pick up a 3rd guy???

A lot of people go to bars and not drink.

I used to belong on a dart team. My home bar was up the street and of course I drank because I walked home. But when we had to go to our opponents bar, I didn't touch a drop because I have a CDL and I can't drink even if I'm not driving a truck.

I wasn't alone. Perhaps you heard of the term designated driver??? Those are people who escort drinkers to places where they consume alcohol, but don't drink themselves.
 
OK, moron.......which of these TWO options are easier:

1. For a wanna-be criminal to get a gun ILLEGALLY possibly sold from an ATF agent posing as a seller......OR
2. For a wanna-be criminal to just walk into a gun show and pick up that weapon, LEGALLY???

Take your time in answering ......

What's the easiest is getting somebody who can legally buy a gun for you. Second easiest is buying one off the street. Very few (if any) criminals purchased their firearms at a gun show. That's because most gun shows do have background checks.
 

Forum List

Back
Top