Just another diversion, completely unable to take the fact that their original argument was completely empty.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
What Would Happen if the Feds Attempted Forcible Confiscation of Firearms? Speculate.
- Thread starter Sirthinksalot
- Start date
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Largely members of the violent criminal gangs that our drug laws create.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You appear to be as paranoid about "lefty"s as control freaks are about guns.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I was replying to you and said "he", as in evince, who you were replying to.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It's the control freaks who are trying to make America a more dangerous country. Gun control has never made things better. Our current homicide rate is back at roughly the same level as in the early '60s, before increasing gun control laws and drug prohibition caused a major increase in violent crime. Today, over half of our homicides occur in less than a dozen gang-infested inner-cities. The rest of the country is about as safe as Canada and most Western European countries. So, yes, acute paranoia is just about right.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
They pick gun free zones because they want to be remembered for how many people they were able to kill. The only thing that gun free zones accomplish is to let them kill more people before being killed.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
They would, most likely, simply be given a polite "No". But you would trust Cub Scouts and Brownies with those horrible killing machines? You obviously don't think that they're really all that dangerous.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You're the one who is obviously completely in denial of reality.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Althea
Althea told me...........
If you don't think this thread is about mass shootings, then you're in the wrong thread.
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
To a fair degree, but what about the disinterested killers who just do it for sport?
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Watch out rjhenn Trump may send the black helicopters after you.
A bit more accurate for well trained but AKs are more versitile and cheap.
What gun control? We have not done it and even took back laws that stopped AR type weapons. Your gun victories result in many, many more shooting deaths and a much more dangerous America. I am happy that pleases you. It sickens the rest of us. We read and watch about shootings almost every day. That is the signs of victory for you guys. To the rest of us, it is cheapening life.
People are dying, people of all ages and all parts of society, so you can arm yourself from imaginary killers .
Beto is talking for himself. It is not the Dem platform and no other Dem candidate says it. If Beto is confiscating ARs, he better get busy because he is the only one doing it. They, whoever that is, are not coming for your arsenal.You paranoid shits are so wrong, so often. This confiscation is imaginary.
Have you noticed how close Beto is to the presidency? He is near the bottom of the Dems. This is rightys playing boogieman again.
They do not go to gun free zones. They go where they have pinpointed their anger. The same day ElPaso was done, a guy shot up bars and was quickly killed by a bunch of cops. You are thinking like a gun nut. If I was trying to kill a lot of people,what would i do? Nope. They go where they are familiar,like work or school. They shoot wives and families. They expect to die.
You miss the point. The stupid and emotional premise to this thread was about the confiscation of guns. That is not happening. So you tough guys talk about war and fighting the government to save your beloved weapons. But if you guys are playing makeup shit, so will I. What if the scouts came to get your guns. They are not your avowed enemies, the police and government. Just kids, who are victims of shooters. Perhaps you could control your anger then,
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Correct, but the other candidates support what he said.
The DNC has not released their 2020 platform yet, but their 2016 platform mentions getting "assault weapons" and "weapons of war" off of our streets. Of course, their platform did not define what those words even mean. It could mean some guns; it could mean all guns. No matter, at least some guns are presently being targeted for banning.
Lie. All of them are saying it in one way or another.
Elizabeth Warren, to give you another specific example, says that she wants to keep "military-style assault weapons" (she didn't define what that is, precisely) off our streets. She wants a new federal assault weapons ban. She wants to ban "high capacity" magazines (she didn't define what that is, precisely). She wants to ban accessories that "make weapons more deadly" (she didn't define what that is, precisely, but she did list 'silencers' and 'trigger cranks' as examples). She goes on to say that she will ban them from "high risk individuals", which is also left undefined. Anyone convicted of a "hate crime" is also banned from having them.
This information is all on her own personal campaign website... https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/g...MIrpb5xoXY5AIVCtbACh2_BQnYEAAYASAAEgIfivD_BwE
I can go through this process for every other major Dem candidate if you would like...
So, stop lying.
Lie. See above.
Lie. See above.
Lie. See above.
Irrelevant.
Lie. See above.