And there are united states football players who have suffered multiple concussions over the course of their careers, but are still able to function on their own. That does not mean this will not change.
An "assault weapons" ban is NOT a conspiracy. How do you propose that the people resist a rogue Gov., if not by the use of the banned weapons? Do you think we're hopelessly STUPID here? Do you think we haven't dealt with the denial a thousand times before? A 10 round magazine limit is NOT a conspiracy. It's the law in Commiefornistan, and several other shining examples of cities where the Lib***** have had their way. STOP LYING TO US.
I am happy to hear that you are one of the few Democrats that actually believes in the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, it is very obvious that the majority of Democrats do not share your view. There is no conspiracy: In fact, it is quite obvious that many left-wing people want to take away guns. The "Assault Weapons" ban, for instance, was nothing more than a gun ban based on cosmetic features that did not add to the deadliness of the weapon (e.g. bayonet lug, pistol grip, collapsable stock, flash suppressor, barrel shroud). It would be like a politician banning stock Honda Civics with racing stripes because he/she wrongly believed that racing stripes made the cars go faster. If politicians are able to ban items because of purely cosmetic features, then surely they can ban the original item altogether.
His executive order was purely symbolic. A feel good measure for when the people have stripped you of practically all power. I've reached a point where I've accepted that firearms will be prohibited or regulated to that effect in all western countries. We gun owners are a resilient bunch, we will survive in one form or another. The threat of prison is just another cost.
why do you think it is that almost EVERYONE who thinks the way to deal with gun crime is to pass more laws restricting the rights of lawful gunners are invariably Democrat-or even more left wing voters? its because gun control is not about crime control, its about the left wing upset at the political power the NRA has. the NYT-a leading DEMOCRAT PARTY MOUTHPIECE issued for the first time in my life (57 years now) a FRONT PAGE editorial calling for the confiscation of semi auto rifles. Yeah its not about gun bans? wake up - - - Updated - - - Not all Democrats are gun banners but almost every gun banner is a Democrat or further leftwinger - - - Updated - - - true, its like saying you support Kentucky Fried Chicken and you want to get rid of poultry farms
easy many people are delayed or denied purchases and later cleared. a right delayed is a right denied the plan of the Gun banners is to make private sales illegal unless you conduct a background check. Depending on the proposal that would mean paying a dealer to do it. for people who live out in the rural areas, that might mean a 2 hour round trip that many would say "SCREW THIS" and then your law would turn them into felons for not doing the check
the Banoid movement generally pretends that their schemes are legitimate and they try to put the burden on US to prove their schemes won't work when in a FREE SOCIETY the burden should be on the control freaks in government who want to restrict our rights saying a UBGC really doesn't infringe on your rights is not sufficient to support such a silly scheme especially in light of the fact that during the 23 years the Brady BS has been law, there is NO EVIDENCE it has done ANY GOOD to decrease violent crime
Gun control advocates never seem to be able to tell us how any gun control scheme will prevent felons from obtaining guns. Isn't that amazing?
Yes.... Ineffective -- and therefore unnecessary -- regulations that only make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their rights. That being the case, there's no sound reason to accept any of them.
Making it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms will not stop gun crimes. True -- it was to protect the right to arms from infringement by the government. It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law.
So long as that gun control is effective and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding -- sure. When you find an example of any such gun control, let us know. argumentum ad populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state restrains the exercise of your right until it determines you are not breaking that law. Not only does that violate the Constitution, it very much indeed treats you like a criminal. argumentum ad ignorantiam, specifically, an appeal to common sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
The 2nd was crested specifically to disallow your version of "workable" firearms laws. - - - Updated - - - So long as those interpretations and regulations do not infringe upon the right to arms
More gun control will start armed rebellion...yeah, that's gonna help. How about some criminal control for a change. Crazy, I know. Our right to bear arms is not dependent upon the Constitution nor the 2nd Amendment...it is an unalienable human right that predates both and will only be taken from my cold dead hands. Molon labe. If you feel froggy....jump.
Ah the Second World War gambit. You are right. The Battle of the Coral Sea was extremely important. If Japan had been able to establish a foothold in Australia then she would have had access to a huge amount of raw resources for her war effort. The land battle at Milne Bay stopped the Japanese land advance. All in all a good, united effort.
