Banning assault weapons
Apr 1, 2021 09:18:09 #
Apr 1, 2021 09:45:44 #
Thanks for distinctions. The news media workers persistently get it wrong. Doing so, they further the project of the anti-gun fanatics who aim to curb gunownership.
Notice as well here that so far nobody has mentioned the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that this amendment means what it says, that citizens have a constitutional right to own and use guns.
Consider also that the Founding Fathers could have outlawed guns among citizens; instead, they gave us the Second Amendment.
Let the anti-gun fanatics put that in their pipe and smoke it.
Notice as well here that so far nobody has mentioned the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that this amendment means what it says, that citizens have a constitutional right to own and use guns.
Consider also that the Founding Fathers could have outlawed guns among citizens; instead, they gave us the Second Amendment.
Let the anti-gun fanatics put that in their pipe and smoke it.
pendennis wrote:
Not even remotely correct. The term "assault weapon" is a canard used to try and identify weapons which have a
military appearance". In fact, assault weapons are not in the nomenclature of military small arms. The M-16 is not defined as an assault weapon, and neither are any of the automatic weapons used by the military. Fully automatic weapons of rifle caliber are machine guns; fully automatic weapons of pistol caliber are sub-machine guns.
military appearance". In fact, assault weapons are not in the nomenclature of military small arms. The M-16 is not defined as an assault weapon, and neither are any of the automatic weapons used by the military. Fully automatic weapons of rifle caliber are machine guns; fully automatic weapons of pistol caliber are sub-machine guns.
Apr 1, 2021 10:30:25 #
berchman
Loc: South Central PA
btbg wrote:
So, the question is why all the moral outrage about mass shootings by the left, but no concern at all for all of the gang related shootings in our major cities? The mass shooting is tragic, but relatively rare, while the gang shootings are a nightly occurrence. Why not address the biggest problem first?
So, the question is why all the moral outrage about mass shootings by the left, but no concern at all for all of the gang related shootings in our major cities? The mass shooting is tragic, but relatively rare, while the gang shootings are a nightly occurrence. Why not address the biggest problem first?
Maybe because the people k**led in mass shootings are ordinary, presumably law-abiding citizens, while if gang members are shot, the number of criminals is reduced?
Apr 1, 2021 10:42:21 #
trainspotter wrote:
My semi automatic "Irish walking stick" can frap an attacker in the small parts and a whack their hands in TWO lightening fast swings.... 
I like it great minds think alike
Dilly Dilly
Nice but :-)
I prefer mine with the pointy handle :-)
Apr 1, 2021 10:45:02 #
Apr 1, 2021 10:52:01 #
Apr 1, 2021 10:59:24 #
Apr 1, 2021 11:21:39 #
Apr 1, 2021 11:37:07 #
steve_stoneblossom
Loc: Rhode Island, USA
There are arguably three factions presently in the US:
1) Those in favor of greater gun restrictions.
2) Those in favor of less gun restrictions.
3) Those who believe the status quo is perfect.
While there are clearly nations with more gun violence per capita than the US, I believe it is fair to say that we are much closer to the worst than the best. Feel free to offer evidence to the contrary if you disagree.
Firearm ownership in the US per capita far exceeds that of any other country (again, please provide evidence to support dissent).
If you believe the level of gun violence in the US is acceptable, I can only disagree with you, and there's no point in further discussion.
If you feel it's unaceptable, and you feel that greater restrictions on firearm ownership are objectionable, what solution(s) do you have to offer?
Please share them with your senators and congressmen, as they seem to be lacking of any ideas as their constituents continue to be k**led.
1) Those in favor of greater gun restrictions.
2) Those in favor of less gun restrictions.
3) Those who believe the status quo is perfect.
While there are clearly nations with more gun violence per capita than the US, I believe it is fair to say that we are much closer to the worst than the best. Feel free to offer evidence to the contrary if you disagree.
Firearm ownership in the US per capita far exceeds that of any other country (again, please provide evidence to support dissent).
If you believe the level of gun violence in the US is acceptable, I can only disagree with you, and there's no point in further discussion.
If you feel it's unaceptable, and you feel that greater restrictions on firearm ownership are objectionable, what solution(s) do you have to offer?
Please share them with your senators and congressmen, as they seem to be lacking of any ideas as their constituents continue to be k**led.
Apr 1, 2021 11:56:44 #
soba1 wrote:
Excellent. This one deserves a lot of thought.
Guys, if you don't know it, that thing between your legs can also be considered a lethal weapon in a court of law just like a gun.
Apr 1, 2021 12:06:39 #
berchman wrote:
Maybe because the people k**led in mass shootings are ordinary, presumably law-abiding citizens, while if gang members are shot, the number of criminals is reduced?
There is a big difference between gun violence being perpetrated by gang members and gang members being shot. There are a lot of innocent people caught up in gang shootings. And, it isn't just gang violence that is where most of the gun homicides in the U.S. occur. It is gang violence and armed robberies, mostly by people looking for a quick score to purchase drugs.
The people shot in those robberies are not gang members. If you want to stop gun violence the single biggest place to start is to address drug addiction and distribution, because the vast majority of gun violence at least indirectly involves drugs.
Apr 1, 2021 12:10:13 #
Fotoartist wrote:
Excellent. This one deserves a lot of thought.
Guys, if you don't know it, that thing between your legs can also be considered a lethal weapon in a court of law just like a gun.
Guys, if you don't know it, that thing between your legs can also be considered a lethal weapon in a court of law just like a gun.
Lol
Apr 1, 2021 12:15:17 #
steve_stoneblossom
Loc: Rhode Island, USA
btbg wrote:
There is a big difference between gun violence bei... (show quote)
This will do nothing to address domestic violence or suicide, which are not insignificant portions of total gun violence.
Apr 1, 2021 15:02:17 #
trainspotter
Loc: Oregon
btbg wrote:
The people shot in those robberies are not gang members. If you want to stop gun violence the single biggest place to start is to address drug addiction and distribution, because the vast majority of gun violence at least indirectly involves drugs.
The people shot in those robberies are not gang members. If you want to stop gun violence the single biggest place to start is to address drug addiction and distribution, because the vast majority of gun violence at least indirectly involves drugs.
And JUST where do most drugs come from: Mexican cartels....on WHAT side of the border? Thanks Joe for open'n up that border.....
Apr 1, 2021 15:13:26 #
steve_stoneblossom
Loc: Rhode Island, USA
trainspotter wrote:
And JUST where do most drugs come from: Mexican cartels....on WHAT side of the border? Thanks Joe for open'n up that border.....
So OUR gun violence is Mexico's fault....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.