After the dems ban AR-15's then what?

W_and_C · 2020-08-20T19:45:14.467Z

WuWei:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

WuWei:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

altair1013:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

That’s true, most criminal shootings is done with handguns.

However…

AR’s don’t cause mass shootings. Do you think not having AR’s will change anything? So maybe by using two pistols a mass shooter kills 15 people instead of 20? Will the dems be happy with that? I’m asking what the end game is? Because nobody seems to know. Any idea?

Yes, that will be better because 5 people will be alive as opposed to dead. Am I wrong ?

If we further eliminate easy access to firearms , maybe the crazy person is forced to use a knife and stab people, so now it’s more likely that he kills around 5 people and 15 people are alive compared to an AR. To me, that’s preferable.

Yes, you are wrong.

Well you must really hate those conceptual five people then

See: Virginia Tech shooting

And he wasn’t even trained. It’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian.

Not sure what you’re talking about exactly. The “Am I wrong?” question was solely pertaining to the hypothetical whether it’s better to have 15 people killed as opposed to 20.

Which I still say yes to. I want those 5 people to live their full lives and I don’t care who knows it.

I am pro-life when it comes to those five !

WuWei · 2020-08-20T19:51:51.371Z

WCD9973:

Yes there is.
And most of the laws that are proposed and in the platform are consitutional ok (per courts, whose opinions matter more then yours).

Either way, the OP asked a question. I answered. Multiple times. You all can not like the answers, not agree with the answer, or think it’s a big lie
But those are the answers to the questions.

I’m not gonna have yet ANOTHER hypathical gun control debate.

No, there isn’t. What there is is a limitation on how long the right can be delayed while it is infringed, which is an admission that it is being infringed.

“Per courts” is a cop out.

WCD9973:

But those are the answers to the questions.

I’m not gonna have yet ANOTHER hypathical gun control debate.

Those are your answers, rationalizations, to the undebatable.

And yet here you are, defending clear infringements to the RTKBA and wanting more. Slippery slope indeed.

Prior restraint is anathema to any semblance of individual rights and specifically this one.

WuWei · 2020-08-20T19:52:56.641Z

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

WuWei:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

WuWei:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

altair1013:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

That’s true, most criminal shootings is done with handguns.

However…

AR’s don’t cause mass shootings. Do you think not having AR’s will change anything? So maybe by using two pistols a mass shooter kills 15 people instead of 20? Will the dems be happy with that? I’m asking what the end game is? Because nobody seems to know. Any idea?

Yes, that will be better because 5 people will be alive as opposed to dead. Am I wrong ?

If we further eliminate easy access to firearms , maybe the crazy person is forced to use a knife and stab people, so now it’s more likely that he kills around 5 people and 15 people are alive compared to an AR. To me, that’s preferable.

Yes, you are wrong.

Well you must really hate those conceptual five people then

See: Virginia Tech shooting

And he wasn’t even trained. It’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian.

Not sure what you’re talking about exactly. The “Am I wrong?” question was solely pertaining to the hypothetical whether it’s better to have 15 people killed as opposed to 20.

Which I still say yes to. I want those 5 people to live their full lives and I don’t care who knows it.

I am pro-life when it comes to those five !

You are wrong in that it will be 15 as opposed to 20 because of the weapon chosen.

Oldandtired · 2020-08-20T20:02:23.193Z

Afraid you are wrong.
We need to reports facts because some people will believe what your saying.
The SC has not ruled that any of the things you want are constitutional.
In fact I think Calif just got their hands slapped over their gun grabbing.
I have no doubt that they will appeal.
Sooner or later the SC is going to have to rule on all the attempts at gun grabbing that states are passing.
And if the SC follows the constitution all the new gun grabbing laws that the states have passed will be gone.

WuWei · 2020-08-20T20:07:09.612Z

Unless you can somehow prove that an AR15 is not an arm, any ban on such is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

Good luck with that.

In addition, the 2nd Amendment includes bearing, not just owning.

WCD9973 · 2020-08-20T20:09:13.265Z

They are the answers in the platform under gun control.

WuWei · 2020-08-20T20:11:05.447Z

WCD9973:

They are the answers in the platform under gun control.

They are rationalizations for violations of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Oldandtired · 2020-08-20T20:11:09.094Z

Maybe if we eliminate easy access to firearms, maybe the next crazy person will be forced to use a homemade bomb to kill people. And instead of killing around 15 people he kills 500 people. Is this preferable to you?
I can’t understand why leftist think that blaming and banning an object is going to stop someone who wants to kill not just one person but as many people as they can is going to solve the problem. You can’t stop crazy.

WCD9973 · 2020-08-20T20:16:21.059Z

Cool story

WuWei · 2020-08-20T20:17:17.445Z

WCD9973:

Cool story

And we’ve come to the end of your narrative.

Have a nice day.

WCD9973 · 2020-08-20T20:18:26.577Z

Not a narrative.
A question was asked about Dems
As a Dem I answered

Everything else is just make believe

WuWei · 2020-08-20T20:19:03.781Z

WCD9973:

Not a narrative.
A question was asked about Dems
As a Dem I answered

Everything else is just make believe

It is a narrative. The End.

johnwk2 · 2020-08-20T22:13:07.944Z

WCD9973:

Either way, the OP asked a question. I answered. Multiple times. You all can not like the answers, not agree with the answer, or think it’s a big lie
But those are the answers to the questions.

We all know what the Democrat Party Leadership wants to do with regard the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

“It’s long past time we renew the assault weapons ban in this country. It is in the best interest of keeping all of us safe.” ~Harris on Twitter 6:18 PM · Aug 10, 2017

.
Keep in mind our Founders intended ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary. The AR-15-semi is a civilian version of the United States military’s M16 and ought to be kept by ordinary citizens to defend against a tyrannical government.

Take a look to China or Cuba to find out what can happen once the people are disarmed. Our founding fathers were absolutely correct in thinking the people ought to keep and bear arms to protect themselves against a tyrannical government should one emerge.

JWK

W_and_C · 2020-08-20T22:17:22.558Z

WuWei:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

WuWei:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

WuWei:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

altair1013:

Here's to feeling good all the time. :

That’s true, most criminal shootings is done with handguns.

However…

AR’s don’t cause mass shootings. Do you think not having AR’s will change anything? So maybe by using two pistols a mass shooter kills 15 people instead of 20? Will the dems be happy with that? I’m asking what the end game is? Because nobody seems to know. Any idea?

Yes, that will be better because 5 people will be alive as opposed to dead. Am I wrong ?

If we further eliminate easy access to firearms , maybe the crazy person is forced to use a knife and stab people, so now it’s more likely that he kills around 5 people and 15 people are alive compared to an AR. To me, that’s preferable.

Yes, you are wrong.

Well you must really hate those conceptual five people then

See: Virginia Tech shooting

And he wasn’t even trained. It’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian.

Not sure what you’re talking about exactly. The “Am I wrong?” question was solely pertaining to the hypothetical whether it’s better to have 15 people killed as opposed to 20.

Which I still say yes to. I want those 5 people to live their full lives and I don’t care who knows it.

I am pro-life when it comes to those five !

You are wrong in that it will be 15 as opposed to 20 because of the weapon chosen.

The person I quoted outlined that, not me.

JayJay · 2020-08-20T22:36:00.414Z

Bibles.

Then Christianity.

Then flying American flags.

Then Jade Helm will be reactivated to come for all those who resist.

Oldandtired · 2020-08-21T01:10:43.360Z

Thanks to a GOP house.
If the house would have had a dem majority Obama would have gone after the second amendment with a vengeance.

Oldandtired · 2020-08-21T01:14:34.356Z

All unconstitutional.
The SC had not agreed that any of what you want is constitutional… Why do you keep spreading misinformation.

RayStark · 2020-08-21T01:30:36.083Z

I have lived in CA for decades now.

I’m not aware of any gun grabbing going on. Please elaborate on your belief that it is going on here. Thanks in advance for your fact-filled reply.

markdido · 2020-08-21T02:01:30.160Z

RayStark:

I have lived in CA for decades now.

I’m not aware of any gun grabbing going on. Please elaborate on your belief that it is going on here. Thanks in advance for your fact-filled reply.

Maybe you should pay closer attention to what’s going on in your state.

KQED

California Adopts Nation's Broadest Gun Seizure Rules | KQED

Under the new law, California will be the first to allow employers, co-workers and teachers to seek gun violence restraining orders against other people.

Even the ACLU thinks Newsome’s “Red Flag” laws are over the line.

Mountain_Soldier · 2020-08-21T02:03:14.884Z

WCD9973:

Universal background checks, removal of the charleston loophole, red flag laws…
This is where you say “but many cities have those laws and it’s still bad” and I’ll say "but most of those weapons used in the cities come from outside the city. Which is why we need these laws to be nationally.
Then you say they won’t eliminate crime. And I’ll say “perfection is not the enemy of good”
The someone else will say those laws are unconstitutional
And I’ll point out that the courts disagree with you and have all been rules consitutional
And round and round and round we go.

But you aren’t really asking for the plan that is out there, been implement in some states, and is even on the platform are you?

You are really just trying to say “Dems want to take your guns”

Biden wants to take them.