- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 104,278
- Reaction score
- 26,203
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
A wonder it didn't pass. Probably because it's trash
A wonder it didn't pass. Probably because it's trashThat bill defines a semi-automatic pistol with an 8 round magazine as an “assault weapon”. Do you agree with that definition?
View attachment 67579886
That bill defines a semi-automatic pistol with an 8 round magazine as an “assault weapon”. Do you agree with that definition?
What do you need explained? You need ME to explain to you what an AR-15 is?If you understood this definition you could explain it.
They don't use a legal definition in courtrooms?The legal definition yes, that's why they don't use that in court rooms.
They specifically said you can’t.They said you CAN.
I have been schooling you on the topic of firearms and constitutional law this entire threadStop the nonsense about matters you know NOTHING about.
Your OP lists a ban on assault weapons. Correcting you about constitutional law regarding assault weapons is off topic?Off-topic in this thread, though.
Nice to see that you are finally willing to man up and make a statement vice constant equivocation.Why in the world would I disagree with a definition?
The definition is the definition. I agree with including MORE types of arms as they are produced. But not less.... If we err, let's err on the side that saves more lives!
Why in the world would I disagree with a definition?
The definition is the definition. I agree with including MORE types of arms as they are produced. But not less.... If we err, let's err on the side that saves more lives!
Well no and AR-15 is just a rifle like any other. The retards that wrote this law don't know that.What do you need explained? You need ME to explain to you what an AR-15 is?
Yes to get an inch so you can take a mile. Your proposal is rejected.See? This is the reason for my proposal
Yes you shouldn't own guns if you don't know that an AR-15 is just a rifle.(Point 7) that people who don't know the most basic concepts of gun ownership should NOT own guns.
Have you ever set on a jury before? You don't have a lawyer Reading 500 lines of definition to the reality is most of us would tune out.They don't use a legal definition in courtrooms?
It's not written to be understood. It's written so you have to go through 8 years of school to be a lawyer.Uhmmmm.... ok....
What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"Let’s be honest. What you really want is confiscation ...
What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"
If enacted, my proposals (regardless of what I want or don't want) would save lives by making it harder for mass shooters to get their hands on assault weapons.
And this fact is proven by the fact that nobody has been able to rebut my points.
That's a lie mandatory BuyBacks are confiscations.What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"
Over My Dead body.If enacted,
He doesn't have any points he has a bunch of pop culture references that he doesn't understand.That's your claim.
It's not a fact.
Ok. So you DON'T need me to explain it to you. Good!Well no....
I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.Ok. So you DON'T need me to explain it to you. Good!
A pistol that has an 8 round magazine is NOT an “assault weapon”. The criteria used by the Democrat idiots and gun control advocates who wrote that legislation is not only a lie, but stupid and ineffective. Banning items due to cosmetic features will have zero effect on criminals.What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"
If enacted, my proposals (regardless of what I want or don't want) would save lives by making it harder for mass shooters to get their hands on assault weapons. And this fact is proven by the fact that nobody has been able to rebut my points.
All we have to do is look at London you're not even allowed to have a knife there anymore so that's the ultimate goal ultimate control over the people. That's so they can kick in your door and arrest you for posting things on Twitter.A pistol that has an 8 round magazine is NOT an “assault weapon”. The criteria used by the Democrat idiots and gun control advocates who wrote that legislation is not only a lie, but stupid and ineffective. Banning items due to cosmetic features will have zero effect on criminals.
Ok. I think your allotment of opportunities to prove that you have something serious to contribute to this discussion have run out....That's a lie mandatory BuyBacks are confiscations.
You don't have to respond to me. At this point it's just egotistical.Ok. I think your allotment of opportunities to prove that you have something serious to contribute to this discussion have run out....
If it's in the definition, it is. If it's not, it isn't.A pistol that has an 8 round magazine is NOT an “assault weapon”.
Well if that's the definition you're using then your proposal is rejected.If it's in the definition, it is. If it's not, it isn't.
Rejecting your proposal.What could be simpler!
No it's not it's about punishing people that don't agree with you. If it was about saving lives you wouldn't completely ignore the people who take lives to focus on political enemies.The one thing you fail to understand is that this is not about hurting the "feelings" of gun-nuts. It's about saving lives. Human life trumps... EVERYTHING.
All your proposals do is disarm people in the face of criminals. 1.7 million defensive gun uses per a year but you are rooting for the criminal, not the citizens of this country.If it's in the definition, it is. If it's not, it isn't.
What could be simpler!
The one thing you fail to understand is that this is not about hurting the "feelings" of gun-nuts. It's about saving lives. Human life trumps... EVERYTHING. If you don't think you'll be able to live without a gun, choose one from the list of exceptions. But leave the rest of us out of your fixations.
All my proposals do is disarm criminals. And you have not been able to rebut any of them. Guns help you defend against other guns. If there is nothing to defend against (as is the case in the REST of the developed world), then we will have saved many lives.All your proposals do is disarm people in the face of criminals
And once again, you quote me out of context. Your dishonesty and lack of integrity is off the charts.All my proposals do is disarm criminals. And you have not been able to rebut any of them. Guns help you defend against other guns. If there is nothing to defend against (as is the case in the REST of the developed world), then we will have saved many lives.
But you are lying when you post this. As you are fully aware each of your proposals was not only rebutted, but hilariously curb stomped.What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"
If enacted, my proposals (regardless of what I want or don't want) would save lives by making it harder for mass shooters to get their hands on assault weapons. And this fact is proven by the fact that nobody has been able to rebut my points.
If it's in the definition, it is. If it's not, it isn't.
What could be simpler!
The one thing you fail to understand is that this is not about hurting the "feelings" of gun-advocates. It's about saving lives. Human life trumps... EVERYTHING.
If you don't think you'll be able to live without a gun, choose one from the list of exceptions. But pro-gun advocates need to leave the rest of us out of their phallic-substitution fixations.
All my proposals do is disarm criminals. And you have not been able to rebut any of them. Guns help you defend against other guns. If there is nothing to defend against (as is the case in the REST of the developed world), then we will have saved many lives.
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?