@joebones5000: More kids will die in alcohol related accidents then what will die in school related mass shootings. Again where is your outrage. Shouldn't you be wanting to ban alcohol? You are not very good at this are you?
Poll: Most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite'
@zaryia said:
@Solaryellow said:
@zaryia said:
That's too bad, looks like a lot of more people will die.
Considering the number of people who die by "assault weapons" is extremely low, I wouldn't and shouldn't expect a genuine dialogue from you on the matter.
A lot of people died last week. That's genuine.
They should ban assault style weapons, IMO. Most Americans agree as well.
How come you aren't on your soap box preaching about the turkey shoots in Chi-Town and Baltimore from the past two weeks and the firearms used in those NUMEROUS deaths? Your ideology focuses on the firearm causing such a minimal (low single percentage) amount of harm yet ignores what has been proven to be used in the majority of murders. Why?
@joebones5000 said:
@Xabiss said:
@joebones5000: More kids will die in alcohol related accidents then what will die in school related mass shootings. Again where is your outrage. Shouldn't you be wanting to ban alcohol? You are not very good at this are you?
So when people start walking into schools and murdering 5 and 6 year olds with "alcohol", we'll worry about it. Until then, we're going to worry about assault weapons, because they're actually doing that.
So what you are saying you have fake outrage. Got it! Because that happens so often right compared to the things I just compared it against. Come on man! Texting and driving and alcohol kill more 5 and 6 year olds then people actually going into elementary schools and shooting them up.
Give me a damn break.
Oh and this is coming from a guy that wants to ban assault weapons and can't even tell you what it is. ROFLMAO! That is the best part.
@joebones5000 said:
@Xabiss said:
@joebones5000 said:
@Xabiss said:
@joebones5000: More kids will die in alcohol related accidents then what will die in school related mass shootings. Again where is your outrage. Shouldn't you be wanting to ban alcohol? You are not very good at this are you?
So when people start walking into schools and murdering 5 and 6 year olds with "alcohol", we'll worry about it. Until then, we're going to worry about assault weapons, because they're actually doing that.
So what you are saying you have fake outrage. Got it! Because that happens so often right compared to the things I just compared it against. Come on man! Texting and driving and alcohol kill more 5 and 6 year olds then people actually going into elementary schools and shooting them up.
Give me a damn break.
Oh and this is coming from a guy that wants to ban assault weapons and can't even tell you what it is. ROFLMAO! That is the best part.
No. What I'm saying is that your false equivalencies are absurd. When people start waling into schools and use "texting"' to murder 5 and 6 year olds in their classrooms, we'll worry about it. Until then, we're going to worry about the assault weapons like the AR15, because gun weirdos are actually doing that.
Okay because drinking and driving and texting while driving are not senseless acts and when they kill people doing it there are no victims? WTF is wrong with you. Again those things are illegal and people still do it. Again tell me what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon because you cant even answer that question. How many Elementary schools have had actual shootings with an AR15 genius because you are acting like it is an everyday occurrence. Where kids are being killed every day from the two things I mentioned above.
BTW gun weirdos are not the ones doing these shootings. Evil damn people are the ones doing these shootings. Tell me one NRA member, which I am not a member of, that has been in a single mass shooting.
So please pull over before you respond because it seems you think it is okay. Freedom does come with a price and it sucks when we have to pay up as a society.
@joebones5000 said:
@Xabiss said:
Okay because drinking and driving and texting while driving are not senseless acts and when they kill people doing it there are no victims? WTF is wrong with you. Again those things are illegal and people still do it. Again tell me what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon because you cant even answer that question. How many Elementary schools have had actual shootings with an AR15 genius because you are acting like it is an everyday occurrence. Where kids are being killed every day from the two things I mentioned above.
BTW gun weirdos are not the ones doing these shootings. Evil damn people are the ones doing these shootings. Tell me one NRA member, which I am not a member of, that has been in a single mass shooting.
So please pull over before you respond because it seems you think it is okay. Freedom does come with a price and it sucks when we have to pay up as a society.
You're trying to deflect.
When people start walking into schools and murdering 5 and 6 year olds with their cars, we'll look into it. Until then, they're killing kids in their classrooms with assault weapons like the AR15. We're not going to ignore that because you want the focus taken away from the guns, which are the real problem in these situations.
If you want us to stop focusing on the guns, tell your crazy gun buddies to stop murdering people with them.
Then tell me how many Elementary schools have actually been shot up with said weapon. BTW it is not cool to say those people are my buddies and it shows what kind of person you are. Just shows that you are a piece of #^$# and you talk about deflection.
Again using the liberal playbook. What now are you going to call me a Russian, raciest, and Nazi next? That's what you do when you have no argument.
@Solaryellow said:
How come you aren't on your soap box preaching about the turkey shoots in Chi-Town and Baltimore from the past two weeks and the firearms used in those NUMEROUS deaths? Your ideology focuses on the firearm causing such a minimal (low single percentage) amount of harm yet ignores what has been proven to be used in the majority of murders. Why?
Straw-Man argument. I never said those weren't also issues. It just isn't what the topic was about.
I am for more strict gun control outside of assault-weapon bans as well, which would also help in gun related violence other than mass-shootings. See, I do care.
I guess this means you would like to talk about the 90% approval for Universal Background Checks?
@zaryia said:
@Solaryellow said:
How come you aren't on your soap box preaching about the turkey shoots in Chi-Town and Baltimore from the past two weeks and the firearms used in those NUMEROUS deaths? Your ideology focuses on the firearm causing such a minimal (low single percentage) amount of harm yet ignores what has been proven to be used in the majority of murders. Why?
Straw-Man argument. I never said those weren't also issues. It just isn't what the topic was about.
I am for more strict gun control outside of assault-weapon bans as well, which would also help in gun related violence other than mass-shootings. See, I do care.
I guess this means you would like to talk about the 90% approval for Universal Background Checks?
B.S. The murders done in the big cities should be front and center but that isn't the case. In the past week or so you've bitched and moaned about banning a type of firearm used in a fraction (single digit) of shootings but have ignored the real issue out there. The same goes for the media. The socialist individual has been largely ignored by the media but the Texas shooter has not. The massacre taking place in Chicago over the past week (DOUBLE DIGITS murder/shooting victims btw) is ignored and those types of shootings (and the firearms used) should be addressed as its the most common or so it seems.
When's the last time you bitched and moaned for a solid two weeks about the common occurring shootings in big democrat run cities?
No matter what gun laws are passed it won't be enough for the left. The guns are the excuse, the the real prize they are after is the Second Amendment. With the Second Amendment gone the left can go after the rest of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights as Obama describes as "Negative Rights" because they stopped him from doing what he wanted to do to transform the country.
If it was up to those people you wouldn't have firearms, period. By viewing the "utopian" liberal areas and how they address the 2A it is quite obvious how they view the matter.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@WitIsWisdom: Our military wasn't as expansive back then and we had a policy of non intervention. Time has changed. The military is enough of a deterrent. And seriously the US population would be incapable of mounting a sustained and coordinated defense. You watched Red Dawn too much.
It's still the same case these days. I'm not saying that our military hasn't grown stronger or isn't enough of a deterrent on its own, but our civilians are still much stronger (especially when you look at numbers). It's just on a different scale these days.
Our military strength plays stronger off our shores than on. If we ever did get invaded (if a few countries joined together and made it past our navy and airforce) they would have to deal with more than just the Army and Marine Corps once they got here, and I am talking about millions of armed civilians, ex-military, police, and every pissed off redneck and patriotic person as well (even if they aren't properly armed).
The big guns are in the hands of the military and government, but if push came to shove the power balance would easily swing to the people, especially since half or more of the military (I'm guessing even more) would side with the people. No government (including our own) is stronger than the combined strength of the people of our country. There are enough guns for everyone to have more than 1 each in the US.
Do you think our military (which very unlikely many would turn their weapons at their own people) would stand a chance of something like a government takeover (especially taking into consideration how much power would be taken or seized by those who sided with their people) just because some suit in office told them to? Come on man... I would certainly hope we are better than that. Like I've said before.. that isn't a chance our government would be willing to take, especially since we have an out clause written within our own Declaration of Independence.
Our military is FOR our people, not for our government. For the people by the people. If that ever came into question I really feel sorry for what would take place... then again, there is a good possibility we would never find out... but that's a discussion for a different time.
I might have taken a bit of a tangent here :P, but the point I was making is that the people of the US still hold the power even if it doesn't look like it, or it appears that many have forgotten that. If you think the people wouldn't seize and use military assets I don't even know what to say. Also, like I already said before, the military would largely work with the people and abandon our government if push came to shove. The people of the US are trained to fight enemies foreign and domestic. Our enemies are a threat to our people, not to our government, regardless of what one may think these days.
Anyways, I wasn't talking about that (I just used it as an example of what would happen). The point is, our military might may be the tip of the spearhead, but is far from the entire package. Sometimes I think people tend to forget that. So, even if they managed to land on our shores the fight would be MUCH larger than they could have ever anticipated once they actually got here. I'm sure the same could be said for many countries though (meaning the strength of their people is greater than the strength of their government). However, once you strip away the ability for those people to defend themselves... well, then they rely on their government, and that's something I won't stand by and watch happen (and isn't what this country was built upon... in fact, it's the complete opposite). We as a people need to start pointing the fingers at the real issues at hand and stop blaming individual entities, and especially those that take the fall unfairly and serve as a two for one deal for the people that benefit from using scare tactics.
Well, I'm done for now.. lol. I am very passionate about this topic, and I love my country. Hopefully a solution can be brought forth that benefits everyone. I think that starts with a more strict policy of firearm ownership and training, but not outright banning things that have been spun into looking like a much larger problem than they actually are.
@zaryia said:
@Solaryellow said:
How come you aren't on your soap box preaching about the turkey shoots in Chi-Town and Baltimore from the past two weeks and the firearms used in those NUMEROUS deaths? Your ideology focuses on the firearm causing such a minimal (low single percentage) amount of harm yet ignores what has been proven to be used in the majority of murders. Why?
Straw-Man argument. I never said those weren't also issues. It just isn't what the topic was about.
I am for more strict gun control outside of assault-weapon bans as well, which would also help in gun related violence other than mass-shootings. See, I do care.
I guess this means you would like to talk about the 90% approval for Universal Background Checks?
Well again you fail because I am okay with Universal Background Checks. I am just not okay banning a type of gun. As simple as that. Now what I do find funny is we have had gun owners tell you exactly our thoughts on what an assault weapon is and you say we are wrong, but the thing is you can't tell us what makes a weapon an assault weapon. What makes a weapon an assault weapon? Simple question. If you can't answer that one question how can you even vote on a poll asking to ban them. You can't even define what it is.
Sorry just saying an AR15 is not an answer. There are many guns like the AR15 that were not banned in 1994 like I posted. So again what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon?
If you can't answer that question you should just stop because it is obvious you are just arguing for argument sake. I showed facts the definition only changed in the dictionary like 2 years ago. Probably not for political reasons, but for the reason everyone was calling those types of guns assault weapons. That is how Merriam-Webster works on changing definitions.
@Solaryellow said:
If it was up to those people you wouldn't have firearms, period. By viewing the "utopian" liberal areas and how they address the 2A it is quite obvious how they view the matter.
Hell they want to ban something they can't even define themselves. Hell I have proven that within this very thread. All they can say is AR15. Well okay we then tell them why that is not the case and they scream well the 1994 ban and the dictionary word says so, but they can't even tell you why? Has the government ever been wrong? Who created that policy was liberals who obviously know nothing about guns. The dictionary word changed just recently. Why?
Are they saying any semi-automatic weapon. I would bet a million dollars the majority of republicans do not want to ban all semi-automatic weapon like the dictionary word now describes it as. To ban all semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns. No way in hell if you worded that question like that would conservatives poll yes, but these two liberal individuals on this forum think that and it is laughable.
@WitIsWisdom said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@WitIsWisdom: Our military wasn't as expansive back then and we had a policy of non intervention. Time has changed. The military is enough of a deterrent. And seriously the US population would be incapable of mounting a sustained and coordinated defense. You watched Red Dawn too much.
Nope, it's still the same case these days. I'm not saying that our military hasn't grown stronger or isn't enough of a deterrent on its own, but our civilians are still much stronger (especially when you look at numbers). It's just on a different scale these days.
Our military strength plays stronger off our shores than on. If we ever did get invaded (if a few countries joined together and made it past our navy and airforce) they would have to deal with more than just the Army and Marine Corps once they got here, and I am talking about millions of armed civilians, ex-military, police, and every pissed off redneck and patriotic person as well (even if they aren't properly armed).
The big guns are in the hands of the military and government, but if push came to shove the power balance would easily swing to the people, especially since half or more of the military (I'm guessing even more) would side with the people. No government (including our own) is stronger than the combined strength of the people of our country. There are enough guns for everyone to have more than 1 each in the US.
Do you think our military (which very unlikely many would turn their weapons at their own people) would stand a chance of something like a government takeover (especially taking into consideration how much power would be taken or seized by those who sided with their people) just because some suit in office told them to? Come on man... I would certainly hope we are better than that. Like I've said before.. that isn't a chance our government would be willing to take, especially since we have an out clause written within our own Declaration of Independence.
Our military is FOR our people, not for our government. For the people by the people. If that ever came into question I really feel sorry for what would take place... then again, there is a good possibility we would never find out... but that's a discussion for a different time.
I might have taken a bit of a tangent here :P, but the point I was making is that the people of the US still hold the power even if it doesn't look like it, or it appears that many have forgotten that. If you think the people wouldn't seize and use military assets I don't even know what to say. Also, like I already said before, the military would largely work with the people and abandon our government if push came to shove. The people of the US are trained to fight enemies foreign and domestic. Our enemies are a threat to our people, not to our government, regardless of what one may think these days.
Anyways, I wasn't talking about that anyway (I just used it as an example of what would happen). The point is, our military might may be the tip of the spearhead, but is far from the entire package. Sometimes I think people tend to forget that. So, even if they managed to land on our shores the fight would be MUCH larger than they could have ever anticipated once they actually got here. I'm sure the same could be said for many countries though (meaning the strength of their people is greater than the strength of their government). However, once you strip away the ability for those people to defend themselves... well, then they rely on their government, and that's something I won't stand by and watch happen.
I always love the liberal argument, well our forefathers didn't know about the guns we have today. Well they sure the hell didn't know about the communication devices we have today (cell phones, Internet, digital media) and I don't want freedom of speech tampered with either! The amendments should never be tampered with period! If they do there needs to be a damn good reason why and the amount of gun deaths is not a epidemic like liberals claim. 400million guns 100million gun owners less then .001% of guns kill anyone. Sorry that is not an epidemic! Amendment stays!
@Xabiss:
Amendment #4. This one people need to take a look at.
@Xabiss: Exactly man. Stripping away founding principles is a slippery slope. These were put in place for the people to limit the power of the government. Going off of the old "they didn't know what we would have these days" argument is lame and played out. They might not have known exactly what we would have today, but they sure as hell knew things would progress, and they sure as hell knew that typical government officials would be as corrupt as they ever were. Always looking to take as much power as humanly possible with the least amount of work, and what better way to do so than to turn the people against each other and have them do their bidding for them (sound familiar? Now so more than ever before)? This is exactly what our founding fathers feared and why they made the amendments in the first place.
Doing the governments bidding for them isn't a good idea, and of course they are going to push people into thinking it is... whatever it takes. The more power a government possesses the more it will take, and the more power it takes the less power the people have to make a change when it matters the most.
I'm not too worried that anything big will come out of this, but it is worrying that so many people are so completely brainwashed into believing false narratives and political agenda that won't do anything but swing even more power in favor of a higher hierarchy.
They already have a few gullible people believing in "assault weapons" (from everything I gather pretty much means about any firearm AT ALL that can fire in semi-auto). I mean, people have been stabbed with forks and spoons.. should we ban them or dub them "assault utensils?"
If people want change then siding with those that have everything to gain and nothing to lose isn't the answer.
@Xabiss said:
@Solaryellow said:
If it was up to those people you wouldn't have firearms, period. By viewing the "utopian" liberal areas and how they address the 2A it is quite obvious how they view the matter.
Hell they want to ban something they can't even define themselves. Hell I have proven that within this very thread. All they can say is AR15. Well okay we then tell them why that is not the case and they scream well the 1994 ban and the dictionary word says so, but they can't even tell you why? Has the government ever been wrong? Who created that policy was liberals who obviously know nothing about guns. The dictionary word changed just recently. Why?
Are they saying any semi-automatic weapon. I would bet a million dollars the majority of republicans do not want to ban all semi-automatic weapon like the dictionary word now describes it as. To ban all semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns. No way in hell if you worded that question like that would conservatives poll yes, but these two liberal individuals on this forum think that and it is laughable.
In terms of firearms the left is not whom I'd say is knowledgeable because they tend to lie and exaggerate about it. A ways back I posted a photo of Kevin de Leon and anyone who is a firearm enthusiast should know who he is because of his bullcrap he spews about firearms. He made himself look like a complete jackass. These are the same people wanting to infringe upon and remove your rights. These people don't know their ass from a hole in their head in regards to the topic yet speak as if they are knowledgeable authority on the matter.
Ask yourself why the issue of semi auto "assault weapons" is front and center with lefties as they ignore statistically proven greater threats and issues dealing with the topic at hand. You and I both know why they ignore the issue like a STD.
@Solaryellow said:
@Xabiss said:
@Solaryellow said:
If it was up to those people you wouldn't have firearms, period. By viewing the "utopian" liberal areas and how they address the 2A it is quite obvious how they view the matter.
Hell they want to ban something they can't even define themselves. Hell I have proven that within this very thread. All they can say is AR15. Well okay we then tell them why that is not the case and they scream well the 1994 ban and the dictionary word says so, but they can't even tell you why? Has the government ever been wrong? Who created that policy was liberals who obviously know nothing about guns. The dictionary word changed just recently. Why?
Are they saying any semi-automatic weapon. I would bet a million dollars the majority of republicans do not want to ban all semi-automatic weapon like the dictionary word now describes it as. To ban all semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns. No way in hell if you worded that question like that would conservatives poll yes, but these two liberal individuals on this forum think that and it is laughable.
In terms of firearms the left is not whom I'd say is knowledgeable because they tend to lie and exaggerate about it. A ways back I posted a photo of Kevin de Leon and anyone who is a firearm enthusiast should know who he is because of his bullcrap he spews about firearms. He made himself look like a complete jackass. These are the same people wanting to infringe upon and remove your rights. These people don't know their ass from a hole in their head in regards to the topic yet speak as if they are knowledgeable authority on the matter.
Ask yourself why the issue of semi auto "assault weapons" is front and center with lefties as they ignore statistically proven greater threats and issues dealing with the topic at hand. You and I both know why they ignore the issue like a STD.
And they say the other side only runs on emotional topics. Gun control, immigration, free school, reparations, free medical, increasing minimum wage, abortion, $1,000 basic income for everyone, and the list goes on and on. I have never seen a party that has ran on the platform of how much free shit they can give people. To be honest they are literally buying votes right now.
I find it hilarious people can't see it. I hope the dumb asses pay my student debt off. I will laugh my ass off all the way to the bank. People don't pay their student loans because they are lazy and I bet the majority of them are driving new cars with a monthly payment higher then their student loan debt. These people that have 100K or more in student debt how the hell did you do it. I guarantee the majority of them didn't work and lived off those loans like idiots. well guess what PAY UP biatch! I pay over $400 a month on student loans. I just look at that money as payment for the good living I am making now and it was well worth it.
I wonder how many humans have been senselessly killed in total from abortions alone, but hey screw it the liberals are here for the children. I am totally okay with abortion if there is a good reason for it rape, incest, health issues, baby deformities, and things like that, but many people use it as a form of birth control or not taking responsibility for their actions. Sorry if you do that, it is straight up murder in my book. No matter what anyone tells me that is a baby inside you and don't even get me going about partial birth abortion, that shit is sick.
The best part I don't vote straight ticket and I didn't vote for Trump. That usually blows peoples minds.
@WitIsWisdom said:
@Xabiss: Exactly man. Stripping away founding principles is a slippery slope. These were put in place for the people to limit the power of the government. Going off of the old "they didn't know what we would have these days" argument is lame and played out. They might not have known exactly what we would have today, but they sure as hell knew things would progress, and they sure as hell knew that typical government officials would be as corrupt as they ever were. Always looking to take as much power as humanly possible with the least amount of work, and what better way to do so than to turn the people against each other and have them do their bidding for them (sound familiar? Now so more than ever before)? This is exactly what our founding fathers feared and why they made the amendments in the first place.
Doing the governments bidding for them isn't a good idea, and of course they are going to push people into thinking it is... whatever it takes. The more power a government possesses the more it will take, and the more power it takes the less power the people have to make a change when it matters the most.
I'm not too worried that anything big will come out of this, but it is worrying that so many people are so completely brainwashed into believing false narratives and political agenda that won't do anything but swing even more power in favor of a higher hierarchy.
They already have a few gullible people believing in "assault weapons" (from everything I gather pretty much means about any firearm AT ALL that can fire in semi-auto). I mean, people have been stabbed with forks and spoons.. should we ban them or dub them "assault utensils?"
If people want change then siding with those that have everything to gain and nothing to lose isn't the answer.
Great post! Don't screw with the Amendments and there is a price for that freedom. Bad people will do bad shit no matter what those amendments or the laws say period. No changes to those items will EVER change it.
@Xabiss: So you belong to a well regulated militia then?
@WitIsWisdom: @Xabiss: Rapid fire and automatic gun prototypes already existed by the time the second amendament was made. The second amendanment also allowed people to own cannons but I'm sure the people claiming it was only for muskets won't allow people to own cannons either despite how long it takes to load one.
Meanwhile in China the Hong Kong citizens are rioting against the oppressive communist party trying to take away their freedoms. They Hong Kong citizens are advocating for a 2nd amendment right so they can protect themselves from the communist party. The Chinese government even shutdown Hong Kong's international flight so no one can get in or out. Yet mainstream media isn't saying anything about this at all. Likely because Hong Kong's situation goes against their claim of people not needing to bear arms anymore.
Funny how the left is willing to take the 2nd amendment away but when the US Census wants to ask if you're a citizen or not then they're suddenly behind the constitution even though just asking if you're a citizen or not does not contradict or go against it. They also claim that police will protect us yet at the same time they are closet KKK members and we've already seen in some mass shooting cases that they will not intervene and wait for the shooter to finish or they take too long to respond and according to the supreme court the police are not obligated to protect us so their is no incentive other than bravery and goodwill for them to do so.
@joebones5000 said:
New poll 66% of Americans want assault weapons, like the AR15, banned.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/457481-two-thirds-support-assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll
But this discredits the poll that was posted by the OP. Just shows polls really do not add up to anything. Always find it funny when a liberal post Fox news as proof only when it fits their narrative. ROFLMAO!
Forty-six percent of Republicans said they are in favor of a ban.
Imagine that liberals who can't even define what an assault weapon is or even know what it is as proven in this thread is at 86%. How cute!
@joebones5000 said:
@Xabiss said:
@joebones5000 said:
New poll 66% of Americans want assault weapons, like the AR15, banned.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/457481-two-thirds-support-assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll
But this discredits the poll that was posted by the OP. Just shows polls really do not add up to anything. Always find it funny when a liberal post Fox news as proof only when it fits their narrative. ROFLMAO!
Forty-six percent of Republicans said they are in favor of a ban.
Imagine that liberals who can't even define what an assault weapon is or even know what it is as proven in this thread is at 86%. How cute!
It shows the number of people who want the AR15 and other assault weapons banned in two separate polls now are both approximately equal with one another, within the margin of error.
If anything, it strengthens the OP's post.
ROFLMAO!!!
No it shows that not the majority of Republicans support it as he claimed as FACT. This poll shows differently. That is almost a 10 point difference you scrub, not close to the margin of error. Good lord do you suck at math as much as you suck at defining what an assault weapon even is.
Again the only people that really want this ban by a major majority are you liberals who can't even define what it even is. All you know how to scream is AR15 cry! cry! cry! cry!
Again define what an assault weapon is?
Also these numbers will go down in a few months just like they always do. People are just voting with emotion. That is why you see these polls so often after a mass shooting.
@joebones5000: This coming from the guy that just discredited the OPs point that most Republicans want to ban these so called guns you all can't even give a definition for.
The same guy that can't do simple math.
And the same guy that will not get his ban on something he doesn't even really know what it is he wants banned.
Hell I still don't think he understands he just discredited this entire post.
As he pulls this info from Fox News ROFL! Of all places.
Damn this soy boy Google warrior is just pathetically bad at any kind of debating. You just can't make this up!
I am going to do you antigunners a favor. Here is a link to an antigunner that gets it. BTW he gives the definition to what the so called assault weapon you all want to ban so bad. Maybe if you read it you will actual learn something.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?noredirect=on#click=https://t.co/3PEOA6RtBe
Notice that he even realize the stuff you want banned isn't going to make a gun chambered with .223 or 5.56 less deadly. BTW that is the ammo type that is often used in AR15s. AR15s can also use 9mm and even .22 if you set them up properly. That is why the gun is so popular because like he said it is a transformer.
He also gets that guns really are not the problem. The issues are so much deeper and that is what we need to focus on. Again everyone wants to take the easy way and it will not fix anything in the long run.
So there you go I helped you define what you couldn't. You are welcome!
@Xabiss:
Been sayin. College education dont teach common sense.
@horgen:
Maybe? Certainly doesnt occur for the most part, if thats the case. Common sense aint so common anymore.
@Xabiss said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Xabiss: So you belong to a well regulated militia then?
I sure the hell do. It is called being a United States citizen. The strongest of all Militia's! :)
That's not a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Hell.........stronger background checks would be well regulated but you get your panties in a bunch thinking about regulations. So I'm calling BS on your statement.
@heirren said:
@Xabiss:
Been sayin. College education dont teach common sense.
Apparently they don't teach the correct use of don't and doesn't either.....lol. Anyway common sense cannot be taught. It's innate.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@heirren said:
@Xabiss:
Been sayin. College education dont teach common sense.
Apparently they don't teach the correct use of don't and doesn't either.....lol. Anyway common sense cannot be taught. It's innate.
Going back to common sense, again. Lol the irony, or youre just tryin to be a jerk.
***
Contextual reading is also something i find most college kids dont ever learn.
@heirren said:
Going back to common sense, again. Lol the irony, or youre just tryin to be a jerk.
***
Contextual reading is also something i find most college kids dont ever learn.
Ah yes. Another one of your posts where you say nothing.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@heirren said:
Going back to common sense, again. Lol the irony, or youre just tryin to be a jerk.
***
Contextual reading is also something i find most college kids dont ever learn.
Ah yes. Another one of your posts where you say nothing.
"Been sayin" is not proper. From this we can deduce that the following sentence indicates slang, as it is also improper. Im sure you picked up on it though and were just trying to take a cheap jab at me.
And again, more irony from you.
@heirren said:
"Been sayin" is not proper. From this we can deduce that the following sentence indicates slang, as it is also improper. Im sure you picked up on it though and were just trying to take a cheap jab at me.
And again, more irony from you.
Now you're veering off topic. Never mentioned the word sayin in any of my posts. If you cannot address the subject then this conversation is over.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@heirren said:
"Been sayin" is not proper. From this we can deduce that the following sentence indicates slang, as it is also improper. Im sure you picked up on it though and were just trying to take a cheap jab at me.
And again, more irony from you.
Now you're veering off topic. Never mentioned the word sayin in any of my posts. If you cannot address the subject then this conversation is over.
I know. I did.
If you cannot address the subject then this conversation is over. Or, your conversation is, to be better put.
@joebones5000 said:
@heirren said:
I know. I did.
If you cannot address the subject then this conversation is over. Or, your conversation is, to be better put.
Conservatives, what's with all the deflection? Every time there is something you guys don't like, instead of actually discussing it, you make dozens of replies that veer completely off topic. It's pretty comical how you guys twist yourselves into pretzels to avoid reality. lol
Im sorry what? Youve read the thread, correct?
Dont be so delusional to assume im a modern day conservative.
With that said that is such a strange thing to say because i have asked numerous times, for example, about what peoples *own* thoughts were on gun control and all i get is silly polls.
Heres the reality(and this is a fact):
Guns dont do the killings. People do the killings.
Thats the reality. Its the liberal side which tries to contort this into, "yeeeaaahhhhh bbbbut bubububt guns and this graph show how many bullet it take for an assault rifle with so many trigger pull."
People do the killings, period. That is not difficult to understand.
Oh the irony.
@joebones5000 said:
@Xabiss said:
@joebones5000: This coming from the guy that just discredited the OPs point that most Republicans want to ban these so called guns you all can't even give a definition for.
The same guy that can't do simple math.
And the same guy that will not get his ban on something he doesn't even really know what it is he wants banned.
Hell I still don't think he understands he just discredited this entire post.
As he pulls this info from Fox News ROFL! Of all places.
Damn this soy boy Google warrior is just pathetically bad at any kind of debating. You just can't make this up!
Oh, well, there you go, two polls showing the same number of Americans wanting an assault weapons bans means you're totally discredited. Sorry, @zaryia
Again it discredits what Zaryia said. This poll shows the majority of CONSERVATIVES do not want AW banned. Pull your head out of you butt and look at the topic of what was posted that was the argument. Damn do you even read because it seems you don't know simple math and nothing about guns. Now you are just proving you are illiterate as hell. Cute, now you have to phone a friend because you are getting your ass handed to you in here.
This might be to advance for you to read, but it would do you a hell of a lot of good:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?noredirect=on#click=https://t.co/3PEOA6RtBe
Next time someone ask you a simple question like what is an assault weapon and why do you want to ban them. This guy gives a good quick explanation so you can finally know WTF you are even talking about. Again you are welcome. Being educated is an important thing if you are going to talk about a topic and not be a Google Warrior!
@joebones5000 said:
@Xabiss said:
@joebones5000 said:
@Xabiss said:
@joebones5000: This coming from the guy that just discredited the OPs point that most Republicans want to ban these so called guns you all can't even give a definition for.
The same guy that can't do simple math.
And the same guy that will not get his ban on something he doesn't even really know what it is he wants banned.
Hell I still don't think he understands he just discredited this entire post.
As he pulls this info from Fox News ROFL! Of all places.
Damn this soy boy Google warrior is just pathetically bad at any kind of debating. You just can't make this up!
Oh, well, there you go, two polls showing the same number of Americans wanting an assault weapons bans means you're totally discredited. Sorry, @zaryia
Again it discredits what Zaryia said. This poll shows the majority of CONSERVATIVES do not want AW banned. Pull your head out of you butt and look at the topic of what was posted that was the argument. Damn do you even read because it seems you don't know simple math and nothing about guns. Now you are just proving you are illiterate as hell. Cute, now you have to phone a friend because you are getting your ass handed to you in here.
This might be to advance for you to read, but it would do you a hell of a lot of good:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?noredirect=on#click=https://t.co/3PEOA6RtBe
Next time someone ask you a simple question like what is an assault weapon and why do you want to ban them. This guy gives a good quick explanation so you can finally know WTF you are even talking about. Again you are welcome. Being educated is an important thing if you are going to talk about a topic and not be a Google Warrior!
Yeah, having 2 polls with the same number of people (within the margin of error) saying the exact same thing sure does mean that both polls discredit one another. ROFLMAO.
Oh, and look at that! You also posted some link that has nothing to do with the conversation in another attempt to deflect. lol
WTF It has the definition of what we are talking about. Seriously you have to be a millennial. Please tell me you are because you seem about a dense as AOC. The actual post was about the majority of conservatives support a ban on AW. This poll showed a 9 point difference between the two polls which is not within the margin of error. Seriously WTF is wrong with you? The OP said as FACT that the majority of conservatives support a ban on AW and this discredits that poll. Good lord you need some serious help.
I have asked you time and time again what the definition is because you say we are wrong about our definition. So if we are wrong WTF is an AW then? So let me finally post it since you are so damn dense:
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an "assault weapon." It's an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
BTW this was written by an antigunner, but unlike you he knows how to research. Because we all know a pistol grip and folding stock makes guns more lethal. ROFLAMO!
I know there are some big words that you may not understand, but from previous post you seem to know how to use a dictionary. The bad part is I think you may have to use it for about 90% of that paragraph above. I am actual trying to help you learn something so you actual sound intelligent in a debate. I just feel sorry for you now because you have a lot to learn!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment