A serious analysis of "Guns don't kill people... people kill people"

you can prove his claims are dishonest when he says he wants to ban guns rarely used for murder over handguns. Of course he wants to ban handguns too -in fact he is on record wanting to ban all guns-except in the hands of the government and criminals

 

Still waiting for you to explain why you call things that are not useful for military assault, "assault weapons". I find it rather dishonest myself. sort of a truth in advertising violation

 

You said this actually.

You didn’t say it was dumb to bring up cars. You are being disingenuous….again.

 

I wouldn't know. I haven't read it!

 

Apparently you were out to lunch during Civics.

But, if you're proposing to ban them then you would have to define what you're proposing to ban. If you want to ban "ice cream cones", then I think you're facing an uphill battle.

But, as you so often say; "please don't reply with a ridiculous post again".

 

Really, you didn't bother to read what you linked to?

Natch.

 

lots of stupid people bought into those lies. but smart ones reject it

 

Uvalde, Parkland, Newtown,... all staged? Huh! Whodda guessed!

Somebody once sent me a link to the photos, and I admit I refused to open it. I don't have the stomach. But I am told they were pretty gruesome.

You're the one using "collecting guns" as an excuse to justify the sale of weapons that can literally obliterate a human body and make it unrecognizable.

 

Tell that to the kids in Uvalde, Newtown, Parkland, ....

What is it you think we want? Go ahead... Throw us your best conspiracy theory!

 

Why not? It's as good a name as any.

 

Huh? You just quoted it!

" or something dumb like that "

Ok... I'm done with this nonsense

 

I’m still waiting for the language that would allow Congress to ban any weapons

 

I'm not proposing to ban them. The bill is, but I think banning the SALE is better. And all the other things in the link I sent.

I don't disagree with the bill. But I think my proposal is more practical.

In any case, the ONLY thing of relevance in the bill is PRECISELY the definition.

 

I am calling bullshit on your claim that these guns obliterated human bodies. maybe if you shoot someone dozens of times. Cars do that though. People who collect guns don't have to justify that hobby to control freaks or Karens BTW. that's what is nice about a free society. we don't have to justify what we do as long as it's legal. and guess what-it's gonna stay legal

 

since you are enamored by the definition-tell us why folding stocks or flash hiders make a firearm deserving to be banned

 

Nope! Just the ONLY part relevant to this discussion: the definition of "assault weapon". And even THAT isn't relevant. I only use it because people wanted one.

I think we've spent too much time debating a DEFINITION. And not enough my POINT in the OP. So I'll stop responding to that nonsense.

 

I'm not. I think it's superfluous. Unnecessary to the topic of this thread. But people wanted one. YOU demanded a definition. And you got it.....

Short memory?

Anyway..... as I said, this is TOO much talk about the definition, and not enough about the POINT I make in the OP. So I'll stop talking about it right here. Because it's absolutely irrelevant.

 

I will repeat it again-the federal government has no proper power to ban private citizens from owning, buying etc any type of firearm

under the diluted supreme court case law, any firearm in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned and that includes all the guns dishonest gun banners call "assault weapons.

 

You said:

To which I replied:

How did that prompt your litany of school shootings.
Somebody once sent me a link to the photos, and I admit I refused to open it. I don't have the stomach. But I am told they were pretty gruesome.

No!
You were harping on the "purpose of a firearm is to shoot people"
I pointed out that firearms have many purposes, including

Collecting was just one of the many things firearms are "made for". I wasn't making an excuse for anything, I was pointing out your point was not the exclusive use of firearms. Graphic descriptions of what a firearm can do to a human body isn't necessary for me because, unlike you, I've seen it. But, having been around firearms almost all my life I know that they can also do good. And I've seen the result of tyranny. And so did our founders, which is why they GAVE us the second amendment.

Which brings us back to the point. Outlawing the sale of a "style" of firearm will NOT save A life.

 

saving lives has absolutely nothing to do with what actually motivates those who want to start their jihad against lawful gun ownership with banning incontinence causing "assault weapons"

 

"Outlaw the sale of", "ban". That's semantics for the same result.
Neither of which are Constitutional; btw.

 

I'm not sure of that, I think they actually think jeopardizing our ability to defend against tyranny will actually save lives. Why they think that when there are many examples that they are wrong. And, many more of what tyrants do to cement their power.

 

Maybe some of the followers. the hard core gun banners are all about expanding governmental power and eliminating any ability to resist that. plus there are lots of cultural warriors who hate the independent loving mentality of gun owners and want to punish us for not buying into their creeping crud of collectivism

 

On that we disagree. I truly believe they believe that banning guns will solve our social problems. They don't see that the two are unrelated.

I differ there too. I believe there are many Americans that WANT to trade Government by the People for Totalitarian Dictatorship. They have been left behind and think their only recourse it to follow an authoritarian. WE have serious social problems, that will be far cheaper to solve than let go the way we have been.

 

Has anyone noticed how @Gollum cannot or will not or is afraid to reply to the basic fact that congress is granted no legislative power in the constitution to ban any weapons?