Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
The OP promotes REGISTRATION, not "restrictions" in the sense you mean.
Last edited:
New Year - same thought about guns.
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
The OP promotes REGISTRATION, not "restrictions" in the sense you mean.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Proof please.
Street Glider
Verified User
Again, which guns were designed for assaults on military targets?
Maybe an AR-15?
What about a Mini 14?
Street Glider
Verified User
But, by connecting registration to mass shootings, it's a valid point.
Gun registration will have zero impact on criminals.
Or do you think they'll suddenly grow some integrity and decide to abide by the law?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Again, find and read the list, then look up which weapons were of choice in the last 25 years ( your stall tactic won't work here, and I don't do homework for the willfully ignorant).
Here's a primer for you from a 5 year old article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/us/politics/ar-15-americas-rifle.html
SmarterthanYou
rebel
registration leads to confiscation. end of story. that is the goal of Democrats
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
True. Of course, you'd have to shred the Constitution first.
OTOH, if you treated voting rights like getting a driver's license and owning a car, we'd have less fucking morons voting at the polls.
TBH, I think it would be easier to tighten requirements on voting than to ban guns. Think about it.
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
Easily checked and verified the weapon used most in mass shooting is a pistol. Never banned in the useless "Assault Weapon Ban".
Will you continue to keep posting that falsehood, or no?
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm
And before you go "Oh, it stopped in 2013, wahh"
Nothing changed up until 11/22.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
The NYT is dishonest.
Last edited:
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
That's true. It's an historical fact.
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
The weapons of choice for mass shootings have been 75% pistols. You're askeered of them little bitty bullet ARs, huh?
Street Glider
Verified User
Typical lib bullshit.
You don't know the answer to the question so, instead of acting like a mature adult and simply stating that you don't know the answer, you stupidly post a link to some paywall in a failed effort to make your point.
Talk about stall tactics.
Destroying your anti-gun rhetoric is remarkably simple (just like many idiot gun-grabbers). Tell me, why was the gun pictured on top not on the AWB list, but the one on the bottom was?
Attachments
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
True. Of course, you'd have to shred the Constitution first.
OTOH, if you treated voting rights like getting a driver's license and owning a car, we'd have less fucking morons voting at the polls.
TBH, I think it would be easier to tighten requirements on voting than to ban guns. Think about it.
Your first sentence is totally incorrect, since no one would be denied legal access to a weapon by my proposal.
As to the rest, I'll go you one further; use the same system that issues your receipts for state lottery for voting. Hell, if you trust them with your money, you can trust them with your vote. Think about it.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Seriously? You might want to rethink your campaign promise. LOL
Not sure what you mean.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Again, find and read the list, then look up which weapons were of choice in the last 25 years ( your stall tactic won't work here, and I don't do homework for the willfully ignorant).
Here's a primer for you from a 5 year old article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/u...cas-rifle.html
Typical lib bullshit.
You don't know the answer to the question so, instead of acting like a mature adult and simply stating that you don't know the answer, you stupidly post a link to some paywall in a failed effort to make your point.
Talk about stall tactics.
Destroying your anti-gun rhetoric is remarkably simple (just like many idiot gun-grabbers). Tell me, why was the gun pictured on top not on the AWB list, but the one on the bottom was?
All you had to do was this via an easy google search: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htmOnce you see the list of formerly banned weapons, you put 2 and 2 together regarding the weapons used in mass shootings since the ban sunset in 2004. The NY Times article clues you in to my previous point.
But that makes sense and is too simple, so instead you do the usual Lapierre shuffle; lying about what others right and then putting forth a premise that is not well thought out.
Let me pre-empt your predictable response: 1. Nothing in the OP proposal "grabs" guns or prevents access to a slew of weapons for law abiding citizens. What it does is help curtail straw purchases by criminal affiliates, affirm ownership in case of use in a criminal action, and tighten up red flags for those mentally imbalanced that are in the system (you can't fully legislate against crazy, but it helps). 2. The 1994 AWB was a COMPROMISE with the gun lobby and folks like you. And here's the thing: if the weapons you noted are just as good (if not better) than the ones on the ban list .... and you have access to them....then what are you having a hissy fit about? Also ask yourself this; why did the previously banned AR-15 style weapons fly off the shelves the second the ban was lifted when these other weapons were available? I have yet to get a straight answer from gunners like yourself. I'll wait.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yeah, seriously.....a convict can't get a car for 5 years after being released or unless he gets a certificate of dispensation from the State upon release. The OP just puts the same background checks to purchasing a gun with all the other similar stuff you have to go through to get a car.
Plain and simple enough to understand, I would think.
What else don't you understand here?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
That old lie has been parroted for years by LaPierre style NRA sycophants. No proposal or law in the last 40 years has included or lead to confiscation of weapons legally obtained by law abiding citizens. If you have valid concrete proof to the contrary, please present it. If not, then your last sentence is also a lie.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
No, it's your convoluted logic based on denial of historically documented facts coupled with your opinion, supposition and conjecture.
Pointing out a registration system that can help curtail criminal activity is NOT confiscation from law abiding citizens. Bringing back a law that kept the weapons most used in recent mass shootings is not a bad thing (at least not to sane, rational and mature folk anyway).
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Thanks for the standard Liberal condescension. It helps explain why 70% of Americans aren't Democrats.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Thanks for the standard Liberal condescension. It helps explain why 70% of Americans aren't Democrats.
My man, YOU wrote, "Not sure what you mean". How am I condescending? That was NOT my intention.
And FYI, a condescending attitude can be had by anyone....even arrogant assholes. >Got'cha!<
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
My man, YOU wrote, "Not sure what you mean". How am I condescending? That was NOT my intention.
And FYI, a condescending attitude can be had by anyone....even arrogant assholes. >Got'cha!<
Sure, play it that way: you're the all wise Liberal and I'm just an idiot in Texas. Now guess who I'm voting for in 2024. LOL
I'm guessing Biden won't be on the ticket. It'll be a Free-for-All election favoring the Republicans.