Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

StoneByStone said:
You're not understanding. I'm not saying the two are the same. I'm saying that if laws won't stop one, why would they stop the other?

So if laws against abortions won't reduce abortions, we probably shouldn't have said laws.
Click to expand...
There were plenty of abortions happening before Roe v. Wade.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
A machine gun is just another firearm and your pathetic attempt to move the goal post, has been noted.

I reiterate:

What "law" do you think has made a difference with anything??
Click to expand...

I’ll ask again, dumbfuck, since this one went over your head. How many gun deaths have been do to machine guns?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then let's go that route; because you appear to be stating that with the laws against machine guns, that no one has committed a murder with one.

Is that correct??

Because the ban was put into affect in 1968 and in September of 1988 one was used, to commit a murder.
Click to expand...

Now you’re starting to catch on, stupid fuck.
 
Part Multi 313 said:
It might be O.K. to ban assault rifles without specific permit and qualifications but if the U.S.A. banned all firearms there would be a disaster. Abortion isn't related to firearm rights.
Click to expand...

Assault rifles are already effectively banned, and have been for almost a century.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
domer76 said:
Now you’re starting to catch on, stupid fuck.
Click to expand...

You're the one who was obviously uninformed and uneducated.

Don't blame others for your own stupidity.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
Into the Night said:
The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. Heller v dc upheld the Constitution. It didn't try to change it. Maybe YOU should read the results of that case, including the circuit court ruling that was upheld.
Click to expand...

Heller said that gun regulation is legal, dumbfuck. You know, that “infringed” thing.

Stupid fuck.
 
StoneByStone said:
No, because I think laws actually do work against guns and abortions. I'm consistent.

Are you?
Click to expand...
Yet no one has ever been able to point to a gun control law that has ever made things better. I've been asking that question for decades and have never gotten an answer that wasn't rooted in wishful thinking.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You're the one who was obviously uninformed and uneducated.

Don't blame others for your own stupidity.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
Click to expand...


Here’s what you just admitted, stupid fuck. The reason one does not see gun deaths with machine guns, is because their possession has been controlled for many years.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
domer76 said:
Here’s what you just admitted, stupid fuck. The reason one does not see gun deaths with machine guns, is because their possession has been controlled for many years.

Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

OR it could mean that law abiding citizens aren't using them to commit crimes, like criminals do; because by paying for the Federal tax stamp, someone can own them/

Since they are able to be owned, how has a law stopped them??
 
StoneByStone said:
You obviously don't since you don't know when life begins.
Do you accept evolution?
Click to expand...
Is the question "when life begins" or "when does a life become person"? Because, really, life only began once, a trillion years ago. Both the sperm and the egg are alive.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rjhenn said:
Yet no one has ever been able to point to a gun control law that has ever made things better. I've been asking that question for decades and have never gotten an answer that wasn't rooted in wishful thinking.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


How many killings have been made with machine guns?

What is the gun death rate in the UK? In Canada? In Australia?

Why do you avoid the obvious answer?
 
Part Multi 313 said:
I wasn't stating that the Constitution allowed or disallowed anything. To my knowledge, the U.S. government banned bumpstocks but haven't yet banned assault rifles. From a moral standpoint assault rifles don't have a useful niche in civilian life and many mass shooters use assault rifles that were obtained legally and were only used because they were handy. (in an uncles cabinet or such)

I would personally define an assault rifle as any automatic rifle that is magazine ready or can be fed a continuous supply of munitions so that the operator can fire dozens of rounds in seconds. You can sort out the measurements yourselves.
Click to expand...

Your definition is the usual ignorant garbage that is all we see from control freaks.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Part Multi 313 said:
Yes. Just like during prohibition. Drinking was greatly reduced as a whole although a small percentage of people went to secret speakeasies and made their own alcohol. I imagine the same would happen with rifles. Most everyone would go without and only a select few would get rifles some other way and hide them.
Click to expand...
Prohibition, like the War on Drugs, was a massive failure and only succeeded in creating a whole lot of violent crime and gangs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top