Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But at east you admit there has been a ban on certain guns.
I didn't insert anything, he said that guns were banned. That statement in itself would mean all guns. He should have specified, no harm, no foul, he was just incorrectly speaking.
No, there has never been a ban on all guns, there have been bans on some specific types of guns, but if a fear of guns being taken away is what helps the economy, then by all means, suckers should run to their gun store and give them all their money. It is great for the economy.
And how many and types of guns should we ban law abiding citizens from owning before gun control advocates are satisfied?
Say we ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" and then a mass shooting happens with the shooter uses a "legal" bolt action rifle or a 6 shot revolver. Remember, they'd have plenty of time for multiple reloads before police show up and engage them.
Are you going to call for banning bolt action rifles and revolvers then?
Actually the person didn't specify, just said guns. Yet, the reality is, he meant some guns, not all guns because there has never been a time when people couldn't buy guns in this country.
That's more because they know they can't ban all guns, not because they don't want to.
They know the 2nd amendment is not going to go away until they can pack the supreme court with liberal judges. So, they have to be content with baby steps on the way to their ultimate goal.
Continuing to state the obvious that there hasn't been a ban on all guns is an unnecessary straw man argument, designed to make gun rights advocates look like extremists if they don't agree to whatever "reasonable restrictions" make up the next baby step.
That's more because they know they can't ban all guns, not because they don't want to.
They know the 2nd amendment is not going to go away until they can pack the supreme court with liberal judges. So, they have to be content with baby steps on the way to their ultimate goal.
Continuing to state the obvious that there hasn't been a ban on all guns is an unnecessary straw man argument, designed to make gun rights look like extremists if they don't agree to whatever "reasonable restrictions" make up the next baby step.
All you have to do is look at states like California and New York to see the end goal of anti gun democrats. Hell, it isn't even the end goal, they try and pass dozens of new gun laws every year here. They trying to further ban and semi automatic rifle with a magazine right now.
This "actually" happened and they are pushing for the same again.
Maybe you should leave this thread for Clintonpdx who is actually having a debate and has some "common sense"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
