they arent.
case closed.
There you go again."Something should be banned but we can't say what, because that would require us to defend a position we are entirely clueless about."
More dishonesty.Oh good! I'll expect you to come in swinging when the next ate up with frothing hysteria anti gun zealot comes ranting in about the blood on the hands of the evil gun nuts.
There you go again.
You don't seem capable of honest conversation.
I don't know why I bother talking to you. The only points you make are dishonest ones.
Boring.
Nope.That isn't the position of those who demand bans but refuse to say what it is they want banned?
More dishonesty.
Equating "all gun owners" with "gun nuts".
Most of us gun owners are with the majority of Americans who want Stricter gun control.
That is a fact.
You really don't seem capable of honest conversation.
Maybe you really can't distinguish.
Nope.
It isnt.
Oh...so a derogatory term is a proper description of someone who politically disagisn't.
Already did.You aren't going to say why though?
More dishonesty.
not what i said.
You are the king of the straw man.
Already did.
I didn't edit your post intentionally. Just cut off everything past the first sentence. Which was where I stopped reading.Hey...in your haste to "honestly" edit my post, you ****ed up the spelling.
I would characterize it as somone who agrees with the notion and understands that the specific definition will be negotiated as part of the passage in Congress.Post number?
And how would you characterize the argument of someone who advocates banning something, but won't say what they are advocating banning? Idiocy? Cowardice?
I didn't edit your post intentionally. Just cut off everything past the first sentence. Which was where I stopped reading.
Why on earth would I intentionally change
".....someone who politically disagrees."
To
"...someone who politically disagisn't."
What would be the point?
Those are already banned. The only exceptions are under heavy ATF supervision.We need a federal ban on weapons that are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time.
and as you know, SCOTUS has already told you that you can't ban the types of firearms you want to.Same old schtick.
Don't be obtuse. Congress will define the specifics.
That is how it works.
nope, as SCOTUS has told you, no firearm in common use can be banned.It's not deflection to state the fact that precisely which firearms will and will not be included in the law will be negotiated in Congress.
You don’t watch the news, I take it.Those are already banned. The only exceptions are under heavy ATF supervision.
The current SCOTUS has told us that what SCOTUS says can always be changed.and as you know, SCOTUS has already told you that you can't ban the types of firearms you want to.
No they haven't.The current SCOTUS has told us that what SCOTUS says can always be changed.
I keep track of the news and there hasn't been any use of "weapons that are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time", meaning bombs or chemical weapons. Those things have been banned from civilian access for a very long time, the only people who can get them have special ATF licenses and dedicated facilities, and their use is under ATF supervision like the ski resort that uses artillery to trigger avalanches before skiers arrive or fireworks makers.You don’t watch the news, I take it.
Ah ok. We are pretending. I was talking about guns, like the one used to kill a bunch of people in. Short amount of time recently in Allen, TX.I keep track of the news and there hasn't been any use of "weapons that are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time", meaning bombs or chemical weapons. Those things have been banned from civilian access for a very long time, the only people who can get them have special ATF licenses and dedicated facilities, and their use is under ATF supervision like the ski resort that uses artillery to trigger avalanches before skiers arrive or fireworks makers.
There hasn't been any use of "weapons that are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time" in the US since the bombing of the Bosten Merithon years ago.
Yes, they have. Recently they overturned a 50 year precedent. So yes, SCOTUS rulings can be changed.No they haven't.
All the guns that were "designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time" were banned in 1986. The only time in the last 30 years one of them was used in any kind of crime was when a police officer took a duty rifle out of his patrol car to murder his wife's boyfriend, and that was decades ago.I was talking about guns,
Heller dies not rule that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional.and as you know, SCOTUS has already told you that you can't ban the types of firearms you want to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?