This Republican has got it right.

[kaz]

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

He can't read. No wonder he hasn't read 1984. The well regulated part is an explanation of the right, not a limitation on the right. Anyone proficient in English would know that.

And seriously, they put in the Constitution that we can have one gun and the government gets to decide what kind of gun that is? The guy is a raving moron as well as a racist

Federalist 46 takes like two minutes to read, well for me anyway. The importance of the well regulated part lies in "being necessary to the security of a free State", as is clearly explained in Federalist 46. Note, "State" is with a capital "S", also note "Militia" is with a capital "M". Come on, you are way out of your league here, you are just too ignorant to realize it.

So the founders meant that it's up go government what guns are protecting from government. God you're a stupid fuck, a liar and a racist

 

[Winston]

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

isnt the 2nd rule of gun safety that all guns are loaded???

You treat every gun as if it is loaded. But no, you don't keep all your guns loaded. Damn, even when hunting, you walk with the breechblock open and the safety on.

I am the oldest in my generation on both sides of the family. I have a gun collection that started with guns from both sides of the family.

I can't shoot any of my old shotguns because they require lead shot. The steel shot they use now would shred them. I haven't shot those guns in almost 40 years. And they haven't been loaded in that entire time.

I still don't pick one up without checking to verify it isn't loaded. Even though there is zero chance that it is. It's how I was raised and where I came from. It's what I learned the first time I ever touched a gun.

You're a leftist. You're stupid and a racist. When you think of shooting people. When we pick up guns, we think of NOT shooting people

If you pull a gun on someone, and you are thinking about not shooting someone, you have no damn business owning a gun, PERIOD. And big whoop, I am the oldest on both sides as well. Dad was an executive for a major grocery chain. He loved to entertain suppliers by taking them quail hunting with me, a teenager, and his dad, who was raised with 16 brothers and sisters and often was tasked with hunting supper. And of course, Mike, the English setter that was the world's best bird dog.

It was quite a show. Dad was comical, "boom, boom, boom", he would let loose with all three shots as soon as the covey flew up, and usually ended up with nothing. Meanwhile, I would knock down the first bird with my little 410, and then grandpa would wait for the birds to cross and knock out two with one shot. Then I would take down a second one with my modified barrel. Hunting the singles, I ruled. The suppliers always left amazed. I still hunt quail with that .410, which should tell you something.

 

[kaz]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.

And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.

So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?

Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?

That blither of your argument holds no water whatsoever. The wording of the constitution is very clear. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the defence of the nation” qualifies the reason why citizens needed the right to bear arms. The Founders never would’ve added that qualifier if the militias the weren’t the reason citizens needed the right.

In 1776 there were no repeating weapons of any kind. There were single shot muskets and pistols, and they were wildly inaccurate. Once a single shot was fired, the shooter had to stop, and reload both gunpowder and shot. Homemade bullets varied by shape and weight because they were homemade and rarely flew true.

The militia act of 1903 ended militias in the United States of America. The Second Amendment should have been revisited at the time but it wasn’t.

But today’s NRA interpretation of the second amendment of an unfettered right to own any kind of weapon of your choosing is total bullshit. If the founders could see the effects of mass shootings where hundreds of rounds are fired within seconds.

It’s not just that the AR weapons fire dozens of rounds very quickly, the bullets that they fire us were designed for warfare and to ensure that the enemy combatant did not get up. These bullets do a tremendous amount of damage when they pass through the body causing lifelong disabilities and medical problems for survivors.

AR weapons have been used in virtually every mass public shooting in the United States since Columbine.

So you can't read either, huh George, the site's official Chinese disinformation officer.

Anyone who's first language is English can read that the militia is an explanation and a condition. Which is apparently your problem since your first language is Mandarin. You're also a racist and your propaganda is derivative and boring

 

[kaz]

OK, Creep. Let's walk through that.

So government takes legal guns from non-criminal gun owners.

Where is the part that makes you safer? You thought honest citizens were the ones shooting at you?

First, they aren't confiscating all guns, but instead cutting down on the numbers. With fewer guns, the owner actually becomes more responsible. As OkTex said, he keeps all his guns loaded. The fewer that number, the safer people in his house (like visiting children) are.

Also since 7% of crimes with guns were traced to guns acquired during a burglary. The fewer guns in peoples hands the fewer guns to fall into criminal hands.

You're just making shit up. And you're a racist

 

[Winston]

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

Yes, you mentioned before that the founders said it is up to government what our gun rights are. God you're stupid. First of all, besides 1984 you never read anything the founders wrote. Second, the 2A protects us FROM government, it's not a power of government you fucking retard. Third you're a racist

LMAO, God but you are stupid. Orwell was not a founder. But Madison was, in Federalist 46 he clearly explains the reasoning behind the second amendment. Regulating firearms is not a power of the federal government, but it is within the power of state governments, per Federalist 46. But who am I kidding, you don't even know what the Federalist papers are, let alone what any of them said.

First of all you're an eight year old parroting what I said back to you.

Second, you are actually stupid, I didn't say Orwell was a founder. "besides 1984 you never read anything the founders wrote." That says BESIDES 1984 you stupid fuck.

Third, you're a racist

Wow, I guess English is not your first language then.

besides 1984 you never read anything the founders wrote.

 

[kaz]

And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.

So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?

Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?

That blither of your argument holds no water whatsoever. The wording of the constitution is very clear. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the defence of the nation” qualifies the reason why citizens needed the right to bear arms. The Founders never would’ve added that qualifier if the militias the weren’t the reason citizens needed the right.

In 1776 there were no repeating weapons of any kind. There were single shot muskets and pistols, and they were wildly inaccurate. Once a single shot was fired, the shooter had to stop, and reload both gunpowder and shot. Homemade bullets varied by shape and weight because they were homemade and rarely flew true.

The militia act of 1903 ended militias in the United States of America. The Second Amendment should have been revisited at the time but it wasn’t.

But today’s NRA interpretation of the second amendment of an unfettered right to own any kind of weapon of your choosing is total bullshit. If the founders could see the effects of mass shootings where hundreds of rounds are fired within seconds.

It’s not just that the AR weapons fire dozens of rounds very quickly, the bullets that they fire us were designed for warfare and to ensure that the enemy combatant did not get up. These bullets do a tremendous amount of damage when they pass through the body causing lifelong disabilities and medical problems for survivors.

AR weapons have been used in virtually every mass public shooting in the United States since Columbine.

OH SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!

this doesnt concern you,,,

I know, right? LOL. She keeps saying she's not an American, and yet she's completely fucking obsessed. And she's a racist. Where have we come across a nosy neighbor like this before? I know ...

DragonLady: What are those neighbors up to! Eek!

 

[bripat9643]

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

He can't read. No wonder he hasn't read 1984. The well regulated part is an explanation of the right, not a limitation on the right. Anyone proficient in English would know that.

And seriously, they put in the Constitution that we can have one gun and the government gets to decide what kind of gun that is? The guy is a raving moron as well as a racist

Federalist 46 takes like two minutes to read, well for me anyway. The importance of the well regulated part lies in "being necessary to the security of a free State", as is clearly explained in Federalist 46. Note, "State" is with a capital "S", also note "Militia" is with a capital "M". Come on, you are way out of your league here, you are just too ignorant to realize it.

So the founders meant that it's up go government what guns are protecting from government. God you're a stupid fuck, a liar and a racist

Aren't all progs fucking racist liars?

 

[kaz]

You're the opposite of Vulcans. Vulcans can't lie, you can't tell the truth.

More examples. The vulcan high command lied to the Andorians.
Commander T'Pol lied to the vulcan high command.

Wow, that's way more times than Democrats have told the truth. And you're a racist

If you're going to make a claim about vulcans, maybe you should watch the series.

I already agreed with you. Vulcans lied more often than Democrats told the truth

 

[meaner gene]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

Actually they are.

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment:

‘Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

LOL, it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. You're a propagandist, fascist

 

[kaz]

You treat every gun as if it is loaded. But no, you don't keep all your guns loaded. Damn, even when hunting, you walk with the breechblock open and the safety on.

I am the oldest in my generation on both sides of the family. I have a gun collection that started with guns from both sides of the family.

I can't shoot any of my old shotguns because they require lead shot. The steel shot they use now would shred them. I haven't shot those guns in almost 40 years. And they haven't been loaded in that entire time.

I still don't pick one up without checking to verify it isn't loaded. Even though there is zero chance that it is. It's how I was raised and where I came from. It's what I learned the first time I ever touched a gun.

You're a leftist. You're stupid and a racist. When you think of shooting people. When we pick up guns, we think of NOT shooting people

If you pull a gun on someone, and you are thinking about not shooting someone, you have no damn business owning a gun, PERIOD. And big whoop, I am the oldest on both sides as well. Dad was an executive for a major grocery chain. He loved to entertain suppliers by taking them quail hunting with me, a teenager, and his dad, who was raised with 16 brothers and sisters and often was tasked with hunting supper. And of course, Mike, the English setter that was the world's best bird dog.

It was quite a show. Dad was comical, "boom, boom, boom", he would let loose with all three shots as soon as the covey flew up, and usually ended up with nothing. Meanwhile, I would knock down the first bird with my little 410, and then grandpa would wait for the birds to cross and knock out two with one shot. Then I would take down a second one with my modified barrel. Hunting the singles, I ruled. The suppliers always left amazed. I still hunt quail with that .410, which should tell you something.

You are one weird dude. So now you're against gun safety because that means you are trying not to shoot someone, which you claim is thinking about shooting someone. Yes, my father first did say that accidentally shooting someone would be devastating to a lot of people. And you think that's BAD??? Wow, what a racist, get help

 

[kaz]

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

Yes, you mentioned before that the founders said it is up to government what our gun rights are. God you're stupid. First of all, besides 1984 you never read anything the founders wrote. Second, the 2A protects us FROM government, it's not a power of government you fucking retard. Third you're a racist

LMAO, God but you are stupid. Orwell was not a founder. But Madison was, in Federalist 46 he clearly explains the reasoning behind the second amendment. Regulating firearms is not a power of the federal government, but it is within the power of state governments, per Federalist 46. But who am I kidding, you don't even know what the Federalist papers are, let alone what any of them said.

First of all you're an eight year old parroting what I said back to you.

Second, you are actually stupid, I didn't say Orwell was a founder. "besides 1984 you never read anything the founders wrote." That says BESIDES 1984 you stupid fuck.

Third, you're a racist

Wow, I guess English is not your first language then.

besides 1984 you never read anything the founders wrote.

Um ... yeah ... wow.

You didn't read 1984 and you also didn't read what the founding fathers wrote.

What the fuck is wrong with you? I mean besides that you're stupid and a racist

 

[kaz]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

Actually they are.

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment:

‘Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

LOL, it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. You're a propagandist, fascist

First, even if you're too stupid to recognize sarcasm, I've literally written thousands of posts on the site on guns and clearly that is the opposite of my position. I was repeating back to them what they said sarcastically.

Second, I know what my views are

And third, you're a racist

 

[OKTexas]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

What's wrong with keeping loaded guns in your house, I keep several loaded all the time. There's nothing unsafe about that. As for the rest of your disingenuous crap, shove it. Just saying the word "gun" can get you suspended from a lot of schools, but you already knew that.

.

At my school many students had guns in the trunk of their car so that they could go hunting when school let out. It is still that way today. In fact, the school board approved just such a scenario. In this part of the country the first thing the local boy scout troop does is take the scouts on a coon hunt and then they make coonskin caps. And if you keep loaded guns in your house you are just STUPID. And honestly, you have no business in this thread because you are doing more to support my arguments than your own.

Name the school, location and the year. And when it's just myself and my wife in the house, there's no problem having loaded guns.

.

 

[Leo123]

This man gets it.
I don't understand why other Republicans don't.

View attachment 508750

Yeah, but I bet he had a magazine anyway so he probably WAS using an 'assault rifle.' What a stupid fuck. Among other guns, I own a .22 caliber semi-auto rifle with a 10-round magazine. Is that an 'assault rifle?' Of course, I don't go deer hunting with it but, I can squeeze off 10 rounds rather quickly.

 

[meaner gene]

First, even if you're too stupid to recognize sarcasm, I've literally written thousands of posts on the site on guns and clearly that is the opposite of my position. I was repeating back to them what they said sarcastically.

1) You were posting in contravention to their position
2) If you were sarcastically repeating their arguments, you would be agreeing with them.

Logic doesn't hold. You claimed your conservative sarcasm was mocking a liberal, who was mocking a conservative.

So we're back to point 1.

 

[Crepitus]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not :: Guns.com

The CDC recently conducted a study on the causes and prevention of gun violence with some shocking results for both sides of the gun debate.

www.guns.com

.

Yeah, that doesn't say what "guns dot com" told you it did.

 

[whitehall]

A freaking imposter with a sign claims to be a republican and a hunter, denounces "assault rifles" and it turns into a 14 page argument. WTF is going on?

 

[meaner gene]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not :: Guns.com

The CDC recently conducted a study on the causes and prevention of gun violence with some shocking results for both sides of the gun debate.

www.guns.com

Yeah, that doesn't say what "guns dot com" told you it did.

His claims is twice the logarithmic center of guns dot com's range.

 

[meaner gene]

A freaking imposter with a sign claims to be a republican and a hunter, denounces "assault rifles" and it turns into a 14 page argument. WTF is going on?

When a republican says something logical, the rest of the republicans go ape shit.

 

[Burgermeister]

This man gets it.
I don't understand why other Republicans don't.

View attachment 508750

This idiot doesn’t understand the purpose of the second amendment.