They might also point out that at least cars and alcohol are restricted and controlled far more than firearms are…so there’s that.
Buried has, IME, been a fairly mixed neighborhood, all brown, white, black and yellow. Kind of on the cusp between urban and suburban. I am informed that there is or was a section-eight block near that intersection, which means, whatever. Airport is not far from there, so that gun will probably end up being used to hold up liquor stores in a dry county in Texas a few weeks from now.
Here is some professional grade stupid about guns from one of our elected representatives
http://www.guns.com/2015/12/03/new-york-lawmaker-calls-for-machine-gun-restrictions-after-san-bernardino-shooting/
Here is the comment in all its glory http://vpstestgunscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/New-York-lawmaker-calls-for-machine-gun-ban-after-San-Bernadino-shooting.jpg
Needless to say she edited that sucker real, real quick when it was pointed that he post showed the intelligence level of cauliflower.
Did I mention she is on the homeland security committee?
Yup industrial grade stupid.
Not exactly on topic, but I think most subscribers to this thread will be interested.
It’s simple: the Constitution says your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but it doesn’t say anything about buying them. Of course you have a right to buy them, but the buying process can be regulated.
It’s also settled law that you have a right to have an abortion, but again, the process of obtaining one has been severely restricted in many states.
So let’s make it fair: make the process of buying a gun similar to the process of obtaining an abortion. You have to be evaluated by a doctor. You have to watch a movie of bad things that happen when you own a gun. You have to wait several days. Maybe a nice anal probe — it may not be medically necessary in most cases, but neither is a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound medically necessary for most women who want an abortion.
Nah, I’ll just get one off the black market.
Ignoring stupid laws is a time-honored American tradition.
So you’re vowing that you would commit a felony? You seem like someone who should not own firearms.
As I’ve said before, gun nuts are basically criminals at heart.
Gee, maybe we should have- I dunno, some kind of “loyalty oath”? And anyone who refuses to swear it gets put in jail?
I was (1.) Pointing out the futility of presuming that everyone will fall into lockstep with
someone’s clever gun control scheme, and (2.) I was saying I’ll join the legions of scofflaws who were ordinary peaceful citizens until suddenly the government declares us felons.
You mean we don’t worship authority. Are you saying that you’d slavishly obey anything that somehow got squeezed through the legislative process- anything at all?
And try telling women in a self-defense support group who’ve bought guns to deter psychotic stalkers or exes that they’re “basically criminals at heart”. I’d like to see that on YouTube.
So you’ll stop this pretense of being a “law-abiding citizen” in the future? Or has that always been a lie?
So, law-abiding people are like slaves? People should get to pick and choose which felonies they will avoid commiting and which they will not?
Sounds like you oppose prohibiting gun ownership for felons.
No, they just can’t own or use a gun, just as the founders intended.
I said:
You said:
So what’s your opinion of people who promoted medicinal marijuana before some states legalized it? Or people who shelter illegal aliens? Or women who hide their children from abusive exes who won custody or visitation? Or Vietnam-era draft resisters? Or protesters who violate laws to call attention to their cause? Or Greenpeace? If you truly believe that The Law is The Law no matter what, then say so; answer the question above or shut up.
And on the subject of answering questions:
-apparently not.
I think if they are committing felonies, they should lose their rights to own firearms.
But, fucking spare me if you equate buying illegal weapons on the black market with sheltering women from abuse. That’s moronic.
We did answer you - your observation was pointless, trivial and deserved only to be farted at. Moronic bullshit.
I asked a perfectly legitimate question: People in favor of banning “assault weapons” frequently describe the AR-15 and AK-47 as “high-powered”. So apparently there’s at least a supposed characteristic that makes a rifle high-powered. I asked what that is. The anti-gunners here have responded with sarcasm and name calling. Is that how you win your debates- declare you’ve pwned your opponent and walk away?
You’re asking about a word that a reporter used, fuckstain. Nobody is responsible to speak for him in response to your distraction.
It’s not just one reporter, it’s a term very commonly used by gun control advocates, as a simple search will reveal. OK, you didn’t say high-powered you were just quoting- fine. I’d still like to know just where the meme of assault rifles like the AR-15 or an AK-47 being “high-powered” came from. By any objective ballistic measure they’re not.
BTW- “fuckstain”? Really classy of you.
I’ll admit I don’t know shit about guns, but are you saying that these guns, even as semi-automatics available for retail sale, have no advantage in a combat situation over your typical deer rifle? Can’t fire any faster? Can’t fire more bullets before reloading? Can’t blow bigger holes?
I’m pretty damned sure that these guns are considerably more high-powered, by these measures, than the rifles we fired at targets at my summer camp nearly 50 years ago. And I also remember the debate over whether Lee Oswald could have fired all three shots at Kennedy and Connally, because the minimum time between shots with his gun was something like 2.8 seconds. I bet the AR-15 and AK-47 can be fired much more rapidly than that.