Gun ban litmus test

Wolfstrike

Gold Member
Jan 12, 2012
2,237
433
160
Los Angeles
a person who advocates a ban on guns is implying that crimes would be impossible, and violence in society would somehow be decreased.
they are implying that the gun is the cause of the problem.
therefor,
any person or organization who advocates changing an Amendment, that was so important to American philosophy that it became second, should be able to prove that a potential murder would not be able to act out the same crime with a knife, rock, pipe, ect
 
a person who advocates a ban on guns is implying that crimes would be impossible, and violence in society would somehow be decreased.
they are implying that the gun is the cause of the problem.
therefor,
any person or organization who advocates changing an Amendment, that was so important to American philosophy that it became second, should be able to prove that a potential murder would not be able to act out the same crime with a knife, rock, pipe, ect

I'm a strong advocate for rigorous education in English language and composition skills... :)
 
First, no one I know of is advocating a ban on guns. What they are advocating is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. And that people who own guns, myself being one of them for nearly 60 years, take responsibility for what happens with the guns they own.

Now as for bans on certain types of weopons, that is already a fact. Try buying a Thompson submachine gun without having the correct papers. There are classes of weapons that are too dangerous to have in the general public. And it is the public that elects the legislators that are empowered to make those laws.
 
First, no one I know of is advocating a ban on guns. What they are advocating is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. And that people who own guns, myself being one of them for nearly 60 years, take responsibility for what happens with the guns they own.

Now as for bans on certain types of weopons, that is already a fact. Try buying a Thompson submachine gun without having the correct papers. There are classes of weapons that are too dangerous to have in the general public. And it is the public that elects the legislators that are empowered to make those laws.

Go to youtube and look for Diane Feinstein saying this
“If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
 
First, no one I know of is advocating a ban on guns. What they are advocating is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. And that people who own guns, myself being one of them for nearly 60 years, take responsibility for what happens with the guns they own.

Now as for bans on certain types of weopons, that is already a fact. Try buying a Thompson submachine gun without having the correct papers. There are classes of weapons that are too dangerous to have in the general public. And it is the public that elects the legislators that are empowered to make those laws.

Well, gee whiz! If we could just get the criminals and crazies to abide by all the gun laws...

That's about the stupidest shit I've seen here lately.:cuckoo:
 
a person who advocates a ban on guns is implying that crimes would be impossible, and violence in society would somehow be decreased.
they are implying that the gun is the cause of the problem.
therefor,
any person or organization who advocates changing an Amendment, that was so important to American philosophy that it became second, should be able to prove that a potential murder would not be able to act out the same crime with a knife, rock, pipe, ect

I'm a strong advocate for rigorous education in English language and composition skills... :)

I'm sure a person as smart as you think you are, would not have a problem reading someones post who doesn't write to suit your fancy?
 
First, no one I know of is advocating a ban on guns.
This is a lie, as you know that The Obama and His droolers want to ban handguns, shotguns and rifles.

What they are advocating is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.
It is illegal for cetain people, due to their mental state, to buy or possess guns.
it is impossible for a law to prevent people from breaking the law.
:dunno:
 
Last edited:
As a bad ass ninja...

I could easily murder someone just as well with a butterknife as with my awesome shotgun




Good point! We have to do something about the mass murders committed needlessly by butterknives. Last count was what, about 32 thousand Americans killed?
 
your definition of "crazy" is your imagination.
under the current rules , you would give the government the authority to remove constitutional gun rights from anyone who is detained for a mental evaluation,
...and any person can be detained at any time.
therefor, people with no convictions would lose constitutional rights.

try not to be stupit
 
Not a single one of you understand the purpose of banning guns.
Lets say their is a group of people in the United States or town or city that fails to conform, without guns in the hands of the sheeple, we could send in a temporary police conformity team to lay down the law like in this video:
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmdFtv9YDsA"]Conformity team laying down the law UNCHECKED[/ame]
Using this tactic is not feasible right now because the sheeple are clinging to their guns, secondly ........ there is no one on this earth that would be willing to lay down the law in this manner because they know they would get wiped out before they even got near the target.
This is another reason guns must be banned & confiscated from the American sheeple, once guns are gone, it will be simple to lay down the law as in the above video.
 

Forum List

Back
Top