Ban all guns?

[Wry Catcher]

You Betcha, as so many on this message board have claimed is the attempt by 'liberals' and The POTUS. Seems as is the case on most on all issues, the far right fringe is lying again. Over 2,200 firearms will remain legal if the Congress has the guts to pass responsible gun control/regulations.

Latest try at new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms - The Washington Post

 

[TNHarley]

Why waste their time?

 

[martybegan]

You Betcha, as so many on this message board have claimed is the attempt by 'liberals' and The POTUS. Seems as is the case on most on all issues, the far right fringe is lying again. Over 2,200 firearms will remain legal if the Congress has the guts to pass responsible gun control/regulations.

Latest try at new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms - The Washington Post

And I assume the police will follow the same restrictions us other "civilians" will have to follow?

 

[TNHarley]

You Betcha, as so many on this message board have claimed is the attempt by 'liberals' and The POTUS. Seems as is the case on most on all issues, the far right fringe is lying again. Over 2,200 firearms will remain legal if the Congress has the guts to pass responsible gun control/regulations.

Latest try at new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms - The Washington Post

And I assume the police will follow the same restrictions us other "civilians" will have to follow?

Police do not go "senile" and kill people.. Oh wait..

 

[Wry Catcher]

You Betcha, as so many on this message board have claimed is the attempt by 'liberals' and The POTUS. Seems as is the case on most on all issues, the far right fringe is lying again. Over 2,200 firearms will remain legal if the Congress has the guts to pass responsible gun control/regulations.

Latest try at new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms - The Washington Post

And I assume the police will follow the same restrictions us other "civilians" will have to follow?

Nope, nor should they.

 

[martybegan]

You Betcha, as so many on this message board have claimed is the attempt by 'liberals' and The POTUS. Seems as is the case on most on all issues, the far right fringe is lying again. Over 2,200 firearms will remain legal if the Congress has the guts to pass responsible gun control/regulations.

Latest try at new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms - The Washington Post

And I assume the police will follow the same restrictions us other "civilians" will have to follow?

Nope, nor should they.

Police are not military, why do they need "military" style weapons?

Any firearm a police officer can carry should be availible to your average citizen. To do otherwise creates a two tier system of rights, those under government employ, and those not under government employ.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Efforts to derail this thread and obfuscate the LIE which has been posted by NRA fellow travelers and others whose gun is more important than the lives of children is duly noted.

 

[martybegan]

Efforts to derail this thread and obfuscate the LIE which has been posted by NRA fellow travelers and others whose gun is more important than the lives of children is duly noted.

So you know your point has more merit and you have to devolve to making a childish statement about the motives of those who disagree with you.

And I dont own a gun (yet). What I own is a respect of the consitution, and the process required to change it.

Change the amendment if you want to ban guns, if not go pound sand.

 

[TNHarley]

So IYO, why is this responsible? Just because something is getting banned? You just tired of criminals having weapons?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Efforts to derail this thread and obfuscate the LIE which has been posted by NRA fellow travelers and others whose gun is more important than the lives of children is duly noted.

So you know your point has more merit and you have to devolve to making a childish statement about the motives of those who disagree with you.

And I dont own a gun (yet). What I own is a respect of the consitution, and the process required to change it.

Change the amendment if you want to ban guns, if not go pound sand.

Now you devolve into spreading ignorance, some arms are already restricted/controlled and have withstood Constitutional examination.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So IYO, why is this responsible? Just because something is getting banned? You just tired of criminals having weapons?

TN, try to write a concise and sensible post.

 

[martybegan]

Efforts to derail this thread and obfuscate the LIE which has been posted by NRA fellow travelers and others whose gun is more important than the lives of children is duly noted.

So you know your point has more merit and you have to devolve to making a childish statement about the motives of those who disagree with you.

And I dont own a gun (yet). What I own is a respect of the consitution, and the process required to change it.

Change the amendment if you want to ban guns, if not go pound sand.

Now you devolve into spreading ignorance, some arms are already restricted/controlled and have withstood Constitutional examination.

Most of the ones restricted are not used by police forces. You dont see the police walking around with Ma Duces or M-60's (most places).

I dont care if over 2200 guns are "still legal" The ones you want banned are common, in general use, and are protected by the 2nd amendment.

 

[TNHarley]

So IYO, why is this responsible? Just because something is getting banned? You just tired of criminals having weapons?

TN, try to write a concise and sensible post.

Why don't you just try and answer the question. You can google one. I will wait

 

[Redbone]

You Betcha, as so many on this message board have claimed is the attempt by 'liberals' and The POTUS. Seems as is the case on most on all issues, the far right fringe is lying again. Over 2,200 firearms will remain legal if the Congress has the guts to pass responsible gun control/regulations.

Latest try at new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms - The Washington Post

Do you have the right not to be forced to own guns? Sure you do . Now you decide you have the right to deny my rights to own guns. My right to own guns of my choice. Does not matter why I choose the weapons I legally purchase just as it does not matter why you choose which car, house or lawnmower to buy.

Try stepping down off of your anti-gun pedestal to rationally consider other people's rights .

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you know your point has more merit and you have to devolve to making a childish statement about the motives of those who disagree with you.

And I dont own a gun (yet). What I own is a respect of the consitution, and the process required to change it.

Change the amendment if you want to ban guns, if not go pound sand.

Now you devolve into spreading ignorance, some arms are already restricted/controlled and have withstood Constitutional examination.

Most of the ones restricted are not used by police forces. You dont see the police walking around with Ma Duces or M-60's (most places).

I dont care if over 2200 guns are "still legal" The ones you want banned are common, in general use, and are protected by the 2nd amendment.

So you say. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar nor pretentious like you to assume the wording in the Second means all arms are protected. I'll leave that to the USSC to decide if Congress does the right thing and passes some rational and reasonable arms control.

[Does it not occur to you that those so opposed to any gun control are similar to those in leadership in North Korea and Iran?]

The point of this thread was to expose the LIES and slippery slope arguments which proliferate on this board. Finally you acknowledge that lies, by admitting over 2,200 guns will remain legal.

BTW, as angry as you got by my post, it's a good thing you don't own a gun. Think about it. Are you emotionally stable and mature enough to own a gun?

 

[martybegan]

Now you devolve into spreading ignorance, some arms are already restricted/controlled and have withstood Constitutional examination.

Most of the ones restricted are not used by police forces. You dont see the police walking around with Ma Duces or M-60's (most places).

I dont care if over 2200 guns are "still legal" The ones you want banned are common, in general use, and are protected by the 2nd amendment.

So you say. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar nor pretentious like you to assume the wording in the Second means all arms are protected. I'll leave that to the USSC to decide if Congress does the right thing and passes some rational and reasonable arms control.

[Does it not occur to you that those so opposed to any gun control are similar to those in leadership in North Korea and Iran?]

The point of this thread was to expose the LIES and slippery slope arguments which proliferate on this board. Finally you acknowledge that lies, by admitting over 2,200 guns will remain legal.

BTW, as angry as you got by my post, it's a good thing you don't own a gun. Think about it. Are you emotionally stable and mature enough to own a gun?

I can seperate real world anger as opposed to online anger created by some nimrod such as yourself.
And comparing gun rights people to NK and Iran, two places were ALL legal weapons are controlled by the state is about as idiotic as you can get.

I dont CARE that 2200 types of guns will still be legal, I CARE that you are trying to ban semi automatic rifles that "look scary" based on the assumption that restricting law abiding gun owners will somehow miraculously make criminals stop breaking the law. The same applies to the idiotic magazine bans, considering the people who have recently used them to commit massacres 1) had his jam and forced him to go a secondary weapon and 2) had 15 minutes of unitterupted time to commit his massacre, thus making the point of a 5 10 30 or 100 round magazine moot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most of the ones restricted are not used by police forces. You dont see the police walking around with Ma Duces or M-60's (most places).

I dont care if over 2200 guns are "still legal" The ones you want banned are common, in general use, and are protected by the 2nd amendment.

So you say. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar nor pretentious like you to assume the wording in the Second means all arms are protected. I'll leave that to the USSC to decide if Congress does the right thing and passes some rational and reasonable arms control.

[Does it not occur to you that those so opposed to any gun control are similar to those in leadership in North Korea and Iran?]

The point of this thread was to expose the LIES and slippery slope arguments which proliferate on this board. Finally you acknowledge that lies, by admitting over 2,200 guns will remain legal.

BTW, as angry as you got by my post, it's a good thing you don't own a gun. Think about it. Are you emotionally stable and mature enough to own a gun?

I can seperate real world anger as opposed to online anger created by some nimrod such as yourself.
And comparing gun rights people to NK and Iran, two places were ALL legal weapons are controlled by the state is about as idiotic as you can get.

I dont CARE that 2200 types of guns will still be legal, I CARE that you are trying to ban semi automatic rifles that "look scary" based on the assumption that restricting law abiding gun owners will somehow miraculously make criminals stop breaking the law. The same applies to the idiotic magazine bans, considering the people who have recently used them to commit massacres 1) had his jam and forced him to go a secondary weapon and 2) had 15 minutes of unitterupted time to commit his massacre, thus making the point of a 5 10 30 or 100 round magazine moot.

Your second paragraph suggests you are too angry to read within context (feel good about that, your not as dumb as TN or Redbone).

I don't care that you don't care. Get it? BTW, all guns look scary when pointed directly at oneself.

The point of the thread was to expose the BIG LIE; it's unfortunate your emotions control you and retard your ability to respond with sagacity.

 

[martybegan]

So you say. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar nor pretentious like you to assume the wording in the Second means all arms are protected. I'll leave that to the USSC to decide if Congress does the right thing and passes some rational and reasonable arms control.

[Does it not occur to you that those so opposed to any gun control are similar to those in leadership in North Korea and Iran?]

The point of this thread was to expose the LIES and slippery slope arguments which proliferate on this board. Finally you acknowledge that lies, by admitting over 2,200 guns will remain legal.

BTW, as angry as you got by my post, it's a good thing you don't own a gun. Think about it. Are you emotionally stable and mature enough to own a gun?

I can seperate real world anger as opposed to online anger created by some nimrod such as yourself.
And comparing gun rights people to NK and Iran, two places were ALL legal weapons are controlled by the state is about as idiotic as you can get.

I dont CARE that 2200 types of guns will still be legal, I CARE that you are trying to ban semi automatic rifles that "look scary" based on the assumption that restricting law abiding gun owners will somehow miraculously make criminals stop breaking the law. The same applies to the idiotic magazine bans, considering the people who have recently used them to commit massacres 1) had his jam and forced him to go a secondary weapon and 2) had 15 minutes of unitterupted time to commit his massacre, thus making the point of a 5 10 30 or 100 round magazine moot.

Your second paragraph suggests you are too angry to read within context (feel good about that, your not as dumb as TN or Redbone).

I don't care that you don't care. Get it? BTW, all guns look scary when pointed directly at oneself.

The point of the thread was to expose the BIG LIE; it's unfortunate your emotions control you and retard your ability to respond with sagacity.

There is no big lie. The contention of gun rights people is that this is the first step towards further bans. What will happen is you will get your new shiny worthless gun control legislation, and then instead of reaching the proper conlcusion, that the laws don't work, you will next go with "well now we have to ban gun types X,Y and Z... THEN gun control will work, we promise!!!!"

My concern has always been the creation of two classes of citizens, one with rights, and one without. That is where my concern over police having access to weapons other cilvilans don't have comes from.

Also accusing someone's response as being soley based on emotion is the same copout as saying said person, "just doesnt UNDERSTAND" what the REAL concept is. Its the same typical progressive inability to fathom someones opposite opinion of something can be based on reasoning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You Betcha, as so many on this message board have claimed is the attempt by 'liberals' and The POTUS. Seems as is the case on most on all issues, the far right fringe is lying again. Over 2,200 firearms will remain legal if the Congress has the guts to pass responsible gun control/regulations.

Latest try at new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms - The Washington Post

You expect me to trust the government because you are stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You Betcha, as so many on this message board have claimed is the attempt by 'liberals' and The POTUS. Seems as is the case on most on all issues, the far right fringe is lying again. Over 2,200 firearms will remain legal if the Congress has the guts to pass responsible gun control/regulations.

Latest try at new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms - The Washington Post

And I assume the police will follow the same restrictions us other "civilians" will have to follow?

That particular law exempts police, retired police, government officials, government employees, and a lot of other people who are more privileged than the citizens.