Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A mandatory year of military service would have several beneficial results, one of which would be fire arms training. One other, undoing some of the leftist indoctrination and giving them a crash course on how to be an adult instead of a perpetually offended little hyper sensitive democrat cry baby.Making someone get training is nowhere in the same ballpark as forcing them to devote a year of their lives in involuntary servitude that may result in their death in armed conflict, hyperbole or not.Awesome hyperbole.Well, that would require people to serve and die in bullshit regime-change wars against their will. Mandatory school training is much less intrusive.If we're going to make gun safety training mandatory, might was well just reenact the draft. Make it mandatory to do at least a year of military service, they can learn gun safety there.1. Make gun training MANDATORY for all school children ages 12 and older.
2. Do nothing else but repeal all federal gun laws.
Insurance is retarded. Accidental shootings are so fucking rare, it would be more effective to force everyone to carry lightening insurance. Besides, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidental shootings anyway. Intentional shootings will NEVER be covered or insurable. That is not how insurance works.
Regarding mandatory storage requirements, that is more bullshit. Weapons must be accessible to owners to actually be useful. See the D.C. case and others.
.
.
I know a guy who works for Microsoft. His job requires him to have a security clearance.Everyone should have a problem with mentally ill or dangerous people such as convicted felons owning guns, regardless one’s political beliefs.I think you’re off at the very start. Liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning guns. They have a problem with mentally ill, or dangerous people owning guns and they have a problem with military style weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time being available.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
And most liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning ARs and similar semi-auto carbines and rifles; indeed, many liberals own ARs.
The thread premise fails as both a strawman fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.
Giving convicted felons the right to vote is probably more dangerous than giving them the right to bear arms.
If you don't think a person has the right to protect their own life, why do you think they should vote?
There should be a process for all convicted felons to get their rights restored in every state.
I know quite a few guys that can't own a gun. They're just family dudes these days, IMO they should be allowed firearms to protect their families.
AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.
If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.
And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.
Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
Why do you think new more stricter gun laws will stop crazies criminals and domestic abusers from getting a gun? Why do you anti gunners go to the extreme when trying to make your case?That is an incorrect basic premise which is either ignorant or intentionally misstates most people’s attitudes toward weapons.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
Why do you think crazies, criminals and domestic abusers should have guns?
While I 100% believe that mandatory military service would do a shit ton of good, it would be contrary to my guiding principles and make me a hypocrite.A mandatory year of military service would have several beneficial results, one of which would be fire arms training. One other, undoing some of the leftist indoctrination and giving them a crash course on how to be an adult instead of a perpetually offended little hyper sensitive democrat cry baby.Making someone get training is nowhere in the same ballpark as forcing them to devote a year of their lives in involuntary servitude that may result in their death in armed conflict, hyperbole or not.Awesome hyperbole.Well, that would require people to serve and die in bullshit regime-change wars against their will. Mandatory school training is much less intrusive.If we're going to make gun safety training mandatory, might was well just reenact the draft. Make it mandatory to do at least a year of military service, they can learn gun safety there.1. Make gun training MANDATORY for all school children ages 12 and older.
2. Do nothing else but repeal all federal gun laws.
Insurance is retarded. Accidental shootings are so fucking rare, it would be more effective to force everyone to carry lightening insurance. Besides, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidental shootings anyway. Intentional shootings will NEVER be covered or insurable. That is not how insurance works.
Regarding mandatory storage requirements, that is more bullshit. Weapons must be accessible to owners to actually be useful. See the D.C. case and others.
.
.
I spent 8 years in the AF and I'm not dead.
Why do you think new more stricter gun laws will stop crazies criminals and domestic abusers from getting a gun? Why do you anti gunners go to the extreme when trying to make your case?That is an incorrect basic premise which is either ignorant or intentionally misstates most people’s attitudes toward weapons.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
Why do you think crazies, criminals and domestic abusers should have guns?
Those extremes are a smoke screen, they want us disarmed so they can do the things they do in DC and Portland everywhere.
They know if they get violent with us in here in Florida they may wind up getting Trayvoned.
And still, numbers don't lie.That is such a fucking lie.I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
Your point=dipshit?
You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.
GTFO HERE
We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.
I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.
.
When you start actually reading my posts instead of making shit up maybe someone here will take you seriously.None of the other rights can accidentally kill someone if mishandled or be used to kill a room full of Innocents in a matter of minutes. You can babble and whine about rights all day long but you cannot ignore fact that they come with responsibilities.Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
I want you to replace any other right we have in place of gun ownership & see if you support that logic. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, not a privilege...
when you start calling for all cars to be banned we can take you seriously,,,
until then youre still a moron,,,
A mandatory year of military service would have several beneficial results, one of which would be fire arms training. One other, undoing some of the leftist indoctrination and giving them a crash course on how to be an adult instead of a perpetually offended little hyper sensitive democrat cry baby.Making someone get training is nowhere in the same ballpark as forcing them to devote a year of their lives in involuntary servitude that may result in their death in armed conflict, hyperbole or not.Awesome hyperbole.Well, that would require people to serve and die in bullshit regime-change wars against their will. Mandatory school training is much less intrusive.If we're going to make gun safety training mandatory, might was well just reenact the draft. Make it mandatory to do at least a year of military service, they can learn gun safety there.1. Make gun training MANDATORY for all school children ages 12 and older.
2. Do nothing else but repeal all federal gun laws.
Insurance is retarded. Accidental shootings are so fucking rare, it would be more effective to force everyone to carry lightening insurance. Besides, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidental shootings anyway. Intentional shootings will NEVER be covered or insurable. That is not how insurance works.
Regarding mandatory storage requirements, that is more bullshit. Weapons must be accessible to owners to actually be useful. See the D.C. case and others.
.
.
I spent 8 years in the AF and I'm not dead.
And still, numbers don't lie.That is such a fucking lie.I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.
Your point=dipshit?
You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.
GTFO HERE
We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.
I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.
.
When you start actually reading my posts instead of making shit up maybe someone here will take you seriously.None of the other rights can accidentally kill someone if mishandled or be used to kill a room full of Innocents in a matter of minutes. You can babble and whine about rights all day long but you cannot ignore fact that they come with responsibilities.Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
I want you to replace any other right we have in place of gun ownership & see if you support that logic. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, not a privilege...
when you start calling for all cars to be banned we can take you seriously,,,
until then youre still a moron,,,
But I doubt it.
And still, numbers don't lie.That is such a fucking lie.I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.
Your point=dipshit?
You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.
GTFO HERE
We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.
I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.
.
At inside distances with a full barrel shotgun you've got a pattern 3 or 4 inches wide. Even with an illegal sawed off its gonna be less than a foot at 10 feet. It also won't blow someone backwards outta window.That's where a 12 gauge shot gun with double ott buck comes in handy. Each shell usually has 9 .38 caliber balls in it, and if you're standing far enough back you can take out all three people with one shot, providing they're standing close enough together. But with 3 or more shells of double ott buck in a semi automatic shot gun, your odds are real good. Makes me wonder why the left concentrates all their hatred tactics on AR's and AK's when a good shot gun with buck shot is far more deadly in close proximity.So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?Fox news told him so.
That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.
It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.
Not for hunting.
Not for target shooting.
Why?
BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.
It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.
If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.
And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.
Yes I have, and they leave much to be desired as far as accuracy.Not precision enough to be sniper rifles or anything, they are precise for their intended use. Have you ever fired an AK variant? Within 300 yards, they are as precise as thry need to be.AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?
And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.
Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
If you are trying to make "precision" an excuse for banning AK variants, you can stop right there. We are not going to start limiting choices. What works for some may not work for others. Personal/home defense is VERY personal.
.
AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.
If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.
And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.
Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
Ah, so we're gonna play stupid amd spend the day building staw men.So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?Fox news told him so.
That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.
It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.
Not for hunting.
Not for target shooting.
Why?
BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?
And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.
No history is not your's to bastardize it
Yes I have, and they leave much to be desired as far as accuracy.Not precision enough to be sniper rifles or anything, they are precise for their intended use. Have you ever fired an AK variant? Within 300 yards, they are as precise as thry need to be.AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
If you are trying to make "precision" an excuse for banning AK variants, you can stop right there. We are not going to start limiting choices. What works for some may not work for others. Personal/home defense is VERY personal.
.
And no, that was not my point.
I meant no one is home.AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?
And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.
Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
if the house is empty why the heck would you burglarize it???
youre such a moron,,,
I meant no one is home.AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
if the house is empty why the heck would you burglarize it???
youre such a moron,,,
Are you really that dumb or are you pretending?
None of the other rights can accidentally kill someone if mishandled or be used to kill a room full of Innocents in a matter of minutes. You can babble and whine about rights all day long but you cannot ignore fact that they come with responsibilities.Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
I want you to replace any other right we have in place of gun ownership & see if you support that logic. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, not a privilege...
