juice1304 wrote: » use a vpn
Tony EH wrote: » Blah blah blah... Heard all the nonsense before lad. Still sounds like ridiculous claptrap for the simple minded. You can repeat all the gibberish mantras you like. It won't be any more convincing.
stefanovich wrote: » Blocked too.
juice1304 wrote: » There is verifiable evidence. Typical leftist response stick your fingers in your ears and say lalalal :rolleyes: Continue to be willfully ignorant so.
juice1304 wrote: » They arent i can read it. Nordvpn works
Billy Mays wrote: » I would like to see some of this verifiable evidence that the Democrats want to disarm the American people
juice1304 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL8IEV2eGhA&ab_channel=CaffeinatedThoughts They are constantly trying to ban firearms. And i know this as i am a gunmaker by trade. To say they arent is just fantasifull.
Overheal wrote: » Fringe statements sure, any actual platform for doing so? Not in a million years. Nevermind you'd need 38 states to ratify any amendment which you'd need to 'take the guns' and last I checked, Democrats do not control 38 state legislatures or governorships. Nor are they at all likely to. We couldn't even pass equality on the basis of sex you think the states will skip that and rush to ratify taking the guns? Come on people.
any actual platform for doing so? Not in a million years. Nevermind you'd need 38 states to ratify any amendment which you'd need to 'take the guns' and last I checked, Democrats do not control 38 state legislatures or governorships. Nor are they at all likely to.
juice1304 wrote: » That would be to remove the 2a not the banning of specific firearms, nor implementing taxes or magazine restrictions. etc. anything that is not specifically mentioned in the constitution is delegated to the states. Look at the laws in Ma.
Overheal wrote: » Now you're off the question originally asked even more: Banning specific weapon types is not disarming the American people. Only ending 2A would disarm Americans, hence my point that it will never happen (at least in our lifetimes) and that Democrats haven't actually pushed for it.
juice1304 wrote: » It is disarming the people because then they cant defend themselves. The 2a was written to protect the people from the government not to go out shooting rabbits.
Billy Mays wrote: » Wanting to ban any Tom, Dick or Harry from owning military grade weapons is not the same as wanting to disarm the American people. To say it is is just fantasifull
Billy Mays wrote: » This f*cking idea that the people can defend themselves against a government that has masive aircraft carriers, thousands of fighter jets etc etc... at their disposal is fantasist nonsense.
Tell me how wrote: » When the government were attacking people practising their first amendment rights this past summer, the 'we need guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government' fanatics were in support of the government actions.
juice1304 wrote: » They aren't military-grade firearms. What does that even mean? Terrible tolerances? explain it to me, id love, to know as someone who actually designs firearms. Military firearms are not designed to kill. They are designed to wound and stabilize a 55gr bullet out to 500m that is simply a fact. My lecturer in college was the former designer at heckler and koch and this is something we went into great detail about. your average .223 produces 1300ft/lbs of energy at the muzzel. If hunting you could only humanly use it to kill a fox and that is if you are using expanding ammunition not a full metal jacket. your average hunting rifle will produce 3 times as much energy. And use ammunition banned by the geneva convention. All you have to do is look at the deaths. 300 on average from all rifles not just semi-autos that also includes police shootings and suicides. So why ban them when thousands are murdered with handguns. Its easy to use buzz words when you have no understanding of firearms.
Overheal wrote: » I wonder if this is how America felt when Congress decided maybe hand grenades and rocket launchers are a little too much freedom to be selling at the local gun shop. And that's been my hot take on it for forever now: the version of 2A that Republicans seem to believe in is the same version of 2A that would let me drive down to the local elementary school and hand out free grenades to juveniles.
Tony EH wrote: » A mickey mouse AR15 will be of no use whatsoever against this... This... Or these people... ...should the government choose to use them. You have nothing but the mindless repetition of baloney fed to you through your YouTube algorithm.
juice1304 wrote: » You can own a hand grenade, a tank, an artillery piece, rpgs, explosives, machine guns etc. if you pay a $200 tax stamp and go through the process. Its simply a case of filling out a form and waiting for the background check to be completed.
juice1304 wrote: » Yes thats why they have been at war in the middle east for the last 17 years. they are known for their high quality firearms and training over there.
Tony EH wrote: » You didn't even understand the point being made to you. We're done here.
Tell me how wrote: » It's easy to see how someone whose livelihood depends on the continued use and sale of guns to be against any sort of gun control, irrespective of the massively high instances of mass shootings in a country.
