You guys are so funny.
Why does someone need a car with 1,000 horse power?
The only gun laws we need are laws about how guns are used...specifically, about shooting people. Other than that, the Constitution is quite clear: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No kidding. It's like when Al Gore living in his home that uses more energy than me and my 50 neighbors, tells us we need to cut down on energy consumption.
The way I see it, anyone who understands the constitution must want criminals to take over, by tryuing to ban guns in the hand of good citizens.
"need" is irrelevant. The Constitution doesn't say a word about "need".
That’s a circular argument. The only reason they don’t keep and bear them is because they are illegal. Remove restrictions and put them on the free market and of course citizens will keep and beat them.
When I have to evaluate a proposal that purports to help alleviate gun crime, I examine who is pushing for it. When the people pushing for it include large numbers of gun banners or those who want to make it as hard as possible for honest people to be armed, that alone is grounds to oppose the proposal. Add to that is the fact that these schemes will never be followed by people who cannot legally own firearms in the first place. So again, it is nothing more than a scheme to harass lawful gun owners. And like it or not, nothing in the constitution actually empowers the federal government do demand such a license, especially using the fiction of the commerce clause
need is irrelevant. you don't need to post on this board. You don't need to have the tools to do so. more importantly OUR government doesn't have the proper power to deny us the ability to own these arms
how do you bear an ICBM, have you any clue what the cost is? The word is BEAR not BEAT BTW
what is an Armour piercing bullet? do you know that almost EVERY centerfire rifle bullet will go through the standard issue police ballistic vest?
I dont need weaponized anthrax. I just want it!!!
No that’s historically inaccurate. If you’re going to make stuff up, do it on Fox News, not here.
England never had much of a gun crime problem BEFORE your silly government started having bed wetting episodes over rare cases of mass shootings
uh that is after he was out of office. Try again. His white house counsel included one of my suite mates from College. I know exactly why he signed the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986 and it was DESPITE the gun ban, not because of it. You can look for my earlier posts which explain why-including the fact that the GOP KNEW it was going to lose the senate in the fall elections and with that, the chance of passing the mainly pro gun provisions
Reagan would be a liberal today
R and T are nest to each other in the keyboard. Sorry.
Reagan’s pro-gun control positions date back to the 1960s and as governor of Texas, your suite mate’s proclamations notwithstanding.
I am going by what he said and did during his administration. that you call him the governor of Texas pretty much suggests you really haven't a clue about what you are talking about and are merely cutting and pasting stuff that you really don't understand