Your problem is, you refuse to take any answer as "defending ones position".
I asked a question. You have yet to attempt to answer it. It's a simple question. I'll post it again for you:
"What's wrong about my statement then? Do you own this weapon already? Are you normally allowed to buy South Korean garands? If not, then how is he after your guns?"
You have yet to counter my arguement
Yes, I did. I responded directly. This would be the part where you counter my statement, but you did not, you resorted to empty rhetoric.
or bring a valid point to the exec order making it more understandable.
I most certainly did. I asked how he was after your guns, if this executive order did not have anything to do with your guns.
You are a classic one sided debater that can not make an arguement, except to go after other peoples posts with an attempt to diminish them with some pseudo intellectual comments.
Says the person who still has not answered my simple question. *shrug*
I defended my position within the first page.
Not to me, and I didn't read any other post in this thread. Could you direct me to where you addressed my question? I'll happily go back and read it.
He isn't taking away any guns that are already here, he is banning further importation.
So he's not going after YOUR guns. Correct?
There are armories here where you can still walk in and buy them, one of them is in Anniston Alabama.
So, then he didn't ban the gun, only the importation, correct? So he's not going after YOUR guns. That's kind of the point I'm getting at.
This thread is a ridiculous overreaction by the thread starter.
Put this together with a bill proposed to increase the tax on ammunition and handguns and you have some clues to what will in effect become a drying up of firearms and the ability to use them in this country. California is proposing licensing to purchase ammunition and a background check each time you buy and a ban on internet sales of ammunition. Next will be banning importation of ammunition followed by taxing domestic ammunition and domestic firearm manufacturers out of business. This is why we oppose incremental gun control. While none of these laws individually remove the 2nd amendment, collectively they have the same effect.
I'm sorry, slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me. It's ridiculous to oppose one situation because of a fear of a future situation which may never come to pass.
To be clear, I do appreciate your response, it was very reasonable. I just do not agree with the idea this is anyone going after your guns because of a fear of something which may never happen in the future. Taking a position against a situation because of what may happen in the future is never a good argument.