This Republican has got it right.

[occupied]

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.

If some weapon had no legitimate purpose, then why would anyone make or sell them?
Rifles like an AR-15 are some of the least powerful and least deadly rifles made.
The tiny .223 bullet was adopted by the military because they decided it made winning easier if they stopped killing people.
The bullet the AR-15 shoots is designed to not be able to kill, but to wound instead.
They are so weak that most states do not allow AR-15s to be used to hunt deer, as they are not lethal enough and cause a slow death.

But really, in a country founded by violent armed rebellion, and with all governments only lasting about 300 years before they become corrupt and need to be destroyed, anyone who does not have combat ready weapons in a democratic republic, is extremely irresponsible, to the point of being a traitor.

I know quite a bit about guns, I own some, I just think the usual arguments the right trots out are stupid and meant to shirk all the responsibility of responsible gun ownership.

So, for what reason do you own them?

To make holes in things.

 

[Winston]

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?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

We support police to maintain our rights, not in lieu of them.

Even a leftist article trying to maximize the use of the term assault weapon and narrow the definition of crime to maximize the percent couldn't come up with a number higher than 7%.

And yet that's the focus of leftists.

Funny how a guy calling himself "Winston" wants to protect the power of government from the people

Leftist article? God but you are stupid. The article came from the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at, now wait for it, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY.

An assault weapons ban is a no-brainer. I mean what is the benefit of legal ownership of assault weapons? Other than making people feel good, I ain't seeing much of a benefit. It is little to no advantage over other weapons when it comes to self-defense. Surely no one is really thinking about using one while hunting, as the OP pointed out. And they sure are not going to make a difference in an armed insurrection against the federal government, pissing in the wind comes to mind. Honestly, the only benefit I see is the ability of some weekend soldiers to go out and play war games with inferior weapons that are made to look like real military weapons. Not really worried about them crazy ass yahoos losing their toys.

But what do we pay for having legal assault weapons. Easier access to those weapons by criminals, and the really violent ones, the ones that conduct offensive operations against law enforcement, use assault weapons. Every once in a while some crazy ass uses one to shoot lots and lots of people, at one time, at movie theaters, concerts, and even elementary schools. Most of the time they legally obtained that assault weapon. And then you have those dickshits I mentioned, the weekend warriors, who have become increasingly emboldened since the elimination of the assault weapons ban. Yep, seeing a real benefit in taking their toys now.

So right wingers were expanding the definition of "assault weapon" and narrowing the defintion of crime to inflate the percent of crimes committed by "assault weapons." LOL. Got it.


"An assault weapons ban is a no-brainer."

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

The whole definition of an assault weapons argument only weakens your position and actually supports mine.

The components in question make a gun look military-style and have little effect on the overall mechanics of the firearm itself.

MSN

www.msn.com

Back to the benefit analysis. Just what is the benefit of allowing legal ownership of guns made to look like military style weapons? Just like I said, it only benefits those weekend warriors. But look at the cost. I mean you can still get the same operational ability with a non-military looking semiautomatic rifle. So again, what is lost to law abiding Americans by banning assault weapons?

You Republicans are a damn hoot. All talk, no action. Like supporting law enforcement. Biden's Covid relief bill included a huge increase in funding to local law enforcement. Not one single Republican voted for it. And that dumbshit MTG is screaming that Biden wants to defund police, and she didn't vote for that funding. Law enforcement supports an assault weapons ban, but that would require ACTION by Republicans. Some might even lose their little toys. Republicans don't support law enforcement financially, nor do they support them through advocating of an assault weapons ban. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Winston]

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.

 

[Winston]

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.

You would think, but he said that was why he named himself Winston.

He can't explain why he supports Big Brother and named himself Winston

LOL. You guys know nothing about Orwell. I believe Animal Farm is more applicable to you guys, bunch of stupid sheep following Napoleon and screaming "Four legs good, two legs bad", as you tumble towards totalitarianism.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

If some weapon had no legitimate purpose, then why would anyone make or sell them?
Rifles like an AR-15 are some of the least powerful and least deadly rifles made.
The tiny .223 bullet was adopted by the military because they decided it made winning easier if they stopped killing people.
The bullet the AR-15 shoots is designed to not be able to kill, but to wound instead.
They are so weak that most states do not allow AR-15s to be used to hunt deer, as they are not lethal enough and cause a slow death.

But really, in a country founded by violent armed rebellion, and with all governments only lasting about 300 years before they become corrupt and need to be destroyed, anyone who does not have combat ready weapons in a democratic republic, is extremely irresponsible, to the point of being a traitor.

I know quite a bit about guns, I own some, I just think the usual arguments the right trots out are stupid and meant to shirk all the responsibility of responsible gun ownership.

I've had access to guns all my life and have owned them for 58+ years. Not one of them have harmed a person, would you call that responsible gun ownership?

.

 

[Crepitus]

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

View attachment 508750

It's not for hunting, silly. If for when those damn deer gang up and attack the house.

 

[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?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

We support police to maintain our rights, not in lieu of them.

Even a leftist article trying to maximize the use of the term assault weapon and narrow the definition of crime to maximize the percent couldn't come up with a number higher than 7%.

And yet that's the focus of leftists.

Funny how a guy calling himself "Winston" wants to protect the power of government from the people

Leftist article? God but you are stupid. The article came from the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at, now wait for it, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY.

An assault weapons ban is a no-brainer. I mean what is the benefit of legal ownership of assault weapons? Other than making people feel good, I ain't seeing much of a benefit. It is little to no advantage over other weapons when it comes to self-defense. Surely no one is really thinking about using one while hunting, as the OP pointed out. And they sure are not going to make a difference in an armed insurrection against the federal government, pissing in the wind comes to mind. Honestly, the only benefit I see is the ability of some weekend soldiers to go out and play war games with inferior weapons that are made to look like real military weapons. Not really worried about them crazy ass yahoos losing their toys.

But what do we pay for having legal assault weapons. Easier access to those weapons by criminals, and the really violent ones, the ones that conduct offensive operations against law enforcement, use assault weapons. Every once in a while some crazy ass uses one to shoot lots and lots of people, at one time, at movie theaters, concerts, and even elementary schools. Most of the time they legally obtained that assault weapon. And then you have those dickshits I mentioned, the weekend warriors, who have become increasingly emboldened since the elimination of the assault weapons ban. Yep, seeing a real benefit in taking their toys now.

So right wingers were expanding the definition of "assault weapon" and narrowing the defintion of crime to inflate the percent of crimes committed by "assault weapons." LOL. Got it.


"An assault weapons ban is a no-brainer."

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

The whole definition of an assault weapons argument only weakens your position and actually supports mine.

The components in question make a gun look military-style and have little effect on the overall mechanics of the firearm itself.

MSN

www.msn.com

Back to the benefit analysis. Just what is the benefit of allowing legal ownership of guns made to look like military style weapons? Just like I said, it only benefits those weekend warriors. But look at the cost. I mean you can still get the same operational ability with a non-military looking semiautomatic rifle. So again, what is lost to law abiding Americans by banning assault weapons?

You Republicans are a damn hoot. All talk, no action. Like supporting law enforcement. Biden's Covid relief bill included a huge increase in funding to local law enforcement. Not one single Republican voted for it. And that dumbshit MTG is screaming that Biden wants to defund police, and she didn't vote for that funding. Law enforcement supports an assault weapons ban, but that would require ACTION by Republicans. Some might even lose their little toys. Republicans don't support law enforcement financially, nor do they support them through advocating of an assault weapons ban. Actions speak louder than words.

And that assault weapons are responsible for a tiny percentage of the crime and yet they are what you focus on obliterates your argument.

Easier than dealing with the thousands of blacks who are killed in your cities that ban virtually all guns now, huh? That's a hard problem, better to misdirect to an irrelevant one.

Just the term "assault weapon" shows how disingenuous you are on this since they aren't

 

[John T. Ford]

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

View attachment 508750

That man is neither a Republican or a Hunter.

LMAO @ how gullible you Leftist Idiots are for the Fake News.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

If some weapon had no legitimate purpose, then why would anyone make or sell them?
Rifles like an AR-15 are some of the least powerful and least deadly rifles made.
The tiny .223 bullet was adopted by the military because they decided it made winning easier if they stopped killing people.
The bullet the AR-15 shoots is designed to not be able to kill, but to wound instead.
They are so weak that most states do not allow AR-15s to be used to hunt deer, as they are not lethal enough and cause a slow death.

But really, in a country founded by violent armed rebellion, and with all governments only lasting about 300 years before they become corrupt and need to be destroyed, anyone who does not have combat ready weapons in a democratic republic, is extremely irresponsible, to the point of being a traitor.

I know quite a bit about guns, I own some, I just think the usual arguments the right trots out are stupid and meant to shirk all the responsibility of responsible gun ownership.

I've had access to guns all my life and have owned them for 58+ years. Not one of them have harmed a person, would you call that responsible gun ownership?

.

Are you actually responsible with them or are you just a statistical anomaly?

 

[kaz]

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

View attachment 508750

It's not for hunting, silly. If for when those damn deer gang up and attack the house.

Funny how you haven't shown the line in the Constitution that says you have to justify your rights to get them yet. Still looking for that part?

 

[John T. Ford]

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?

That's not true.

But, it doesn't surprise me that you don't know the difference.

Here's something else you probably don't know.

BOTH are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[kaz]

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

 

[Crepitus]

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

View attachment 508750

It's not for hunting, silly. If for when those damn deer gang up and attack the house.

Funny how you haven't shown the line in the Constitution that says you have to justify your rights to get them yet. Still looking for that part?

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

 

[kaz]

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.

You would think, but he said that was why he named himself Winston.

He can't explain why he supports Big Brother and named himself Winston

LOL. You guys know nothing about Orwell. I believe Animal Farm is more applicable to you guys, bunch of stupid sheep following Napoleon and screaming "Four legs good, two legs bad", as you tumble towards totalitarianism.

That's classic.

Winson: You guys ... Orwell was FOR totalitarian government, he totally supports me! That's what Animal farm and 1984 are about! Don't you guys know anything!

LOL, dumb ass

 

[OKTexas]

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?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

We support police to maintain our rights, not in lieu of them.

Even a leftist article trying to maximize the use of the term assault weapon and narrow the definition of crime to maximize the percent couldn't come up with a number higher than 7%.

And yet that's the focus of leftists.

Funny how a guy calling himself "Winston" wants to protect the power of government from the people

Leftist article? God but you are stupid. The article came from the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at, now wait for it, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY.

An assault weapons ban is a no-brainer. I mean what is the benefit of legal ownership of assault weapons? Other than making people feel good, I ain't seeing much of a benefit. It is little to no advantage over other weapons when it comes to self-defense. Surely no one is really thinking about using one while hunting, as the OP pointed out. And they sure are not going to make a difference in an armed insurrection against the federal government, pissing in the wind comes to mind. Honestly, the only benefit I see is the ability of some weekend soldiers to go out and play war games with inferior weapons that are made to look like real military weapons. Not really worried about them crazy ass yahoos losing their toys.

But what do we pay for having legal assault weapons. Easier access to those weapons by criminals, and the really violent ones, the ones that conduct offensive operations against law enforcement, use assault weapons. Every once in a while some crazy ass uses one to shoot lots and lots of people, at one time, at movie theaters, concerts, and even elementary schools. Most of the time they legally obtained that assault weapon. And then you have those dickshits I mentioned, the weekend warriors, who have become increasingly emboldened since the elimination of the assault weapons ban. Yep, seeing a real benefit in taking their toys now.

Have you ever had a problem with feral hogs?

.

 

[John T. Ford]

AR-15 with 30 round clip

Helo-Hoggin' ..... Texas Style !!!!

 

[kaz]

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

View attachment 508750

It's not for hunting, silly. If for when those damn deer gang up and attack the house.

Funny how you haven't shown the line in the Constitution that says you have to justify your rights to get them yet. Still looking for that part?

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant.

Funny thing. Your argument clearly indicates they said all rights naturally reside with government. Actually the government has no rights, only the people do. Government has only those POWERS that were specifically given to it by the people.

That means when technology changes, the government does NOT get those powers unless the people explicitly give them to them.

For God sakes, man. Have you EVER taken a civics class? Holy crap

 

[meaner gene]

How do you know he's a Republican?

BTW, assault weapons aren't actually assault weapons and virtually zero percent of murders are committed with the guns you and he are mislabeling as "assault weapons"

Actually the FBI statistics are misleading. Since they have no definition of assault weapon as a required category. It's like claiming that midgets don't commit crimes because the crime stats don't list them committing crimes.

 

[Winston]

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?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

We support police to maintain our rights, not in lieu of them.

Even a leftist article trying to maximize the use of the term assault weapon and narrow the definition of crime to maximize the percent couldn't come up with a number higher than 7%.

And yet that's the focus of leftists.

Funny how a guy calling himself "Winston" wants to protect the power of government from the people

Leftist article? God but you are stupid. The article came from the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at, now wait for it, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY.

An assault weapons ban is a no-brainer. I mean what is the benefit of legal ownership of assault weapons? Other than making people feel good, I ain't seeing much of a benefit. It is little to no advantage over other weapons when it comes to self-defense. Surely no one is really thinking about using one while hunting, as the OP pointed out. And they sure are not going to make a difference in an armed insurrection against the federal government, pissing in the wind comes to mind. Honestly, the only benefit I see is the ability of some weekend soldiers to go out and play war games with inferior weapons that are made to look like real military weapons. Not really worried about them crazy ass yahoos losing their toys.

But what do we pay for having legal assault weapons. Easier access to those weapons by criminals, and the really violent ones, the ones that conduct offensive operations against law enforcement, use assault weapons. Every once in a while some crazy ass uses one to shoot lots and lots of people, at one time, at movie theaters, concerts, and even elementary schools. Most of the time they legally obtained that assault weapon. And then you have those dickshits I mentioned, the weekend warriors, who have become increasingly emboldened since the elimination of the assault weapons ban. Yep, seeing a real benefit in taking their toys now.

So right wingers were expanding the definition of "assault weapon" and narrowing the defintion of crime to inflate the percent of crimes committed by "assault weapons." LOL. Got it.


"An assault weapons ban is a no-brainer."

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

The whole definition of an assault weapons argument only weakens your position and actually supports mine.

The components in question make a gun look military-style and have little effect on the overall mechanics of the firearm itself.

MSN

www.msn.com

Back to the benefit analysis. Just what is the benefit of allowing legal ownership of guns made to look like military style weapons? Just like I said, it only benefits those weekend warriors. But look at the cost. I mean you can still get the same operational ability with a non-military looking semiautomatic rifle. So again, what is lost to law abiding Americans by banning assault weapons?

You Republicans are a damn hoot. All talk, no action. Like supporting law enforcement. Biden's Covid relief bill included a huge increase in funding to local law enforcement. Not one single Republican voted for it. And that dumbshit MTG is screaming that Biden wants to defund police, and she didn't vote for that funding. Law enforcement supports an assault weapons ban, but that would require ACTION by Republicans. Some might even lose their little toys. Republicans don't support law enforcement financially, nor do they support them through advocating of an assault weapons ban. Actions speak louder than words.

And that assault weapons are responsible for a tiny percentage of the crime and yet they are what you focus on obliterates your argument.

Easier than dealing with the thousands of blacks who are killed in your cities that ban virtually all guns now, huh? That's a hard problem, better to misdirect to an irrelevant one.

Just the term "assault weapon" shows how disingenuous you are on this since they aren't

Illegal immigrants are responsible for a small percentage of violent crimes, why focus on them?

Transgender athletes represent a miniscule percentage of competing athletes in high school and collegiate sports, why focus on them?

Gay marriages represent a tiny fraction of all marriages, why focus on them?

But you are wrong, George Mason estimated that assault weapons were involved in 40% of seriously violent crimes, like multiple homicides and the murdering of police officers. Why do you not support law enforcement?

 

[progressive hunter]

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

View attachment 508750

I guess hes to fucking stupid to know the 2nd A has nothing to do with hunting,, nor does the OP,,,

my guess is hes lying about being a republican,,