Hey dildog, when someone makes an assertion, it's great if they back it up.
Good to see you again jumping in when no one was talking to you, since it is something you complain about on the regs.
Hey dildog, when someone makes an assertion, it's great if they back it up.Facts, you should get some.
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center...tates-annual-statistical-update-2017/download
5.2+ million registered guns. Then, you compare that to the total estimations of guns in the us which lets say on the low end is 270+ million.
Thank god there's not some hole in the law that would allow people who shouldn't have guns to get them anyway without being found out without having to steal them. Background checks will catch that every time amiright?Doesn't this run counter the talking point about how criminals will get guns no matter what?
Baffling, really.Thank god there's not some hole in the law that would allow people who shouldn't have guns to get them anyway without being found out without having to steal them. Background checks will catch that every time amiright?
most gun owners are open to discussion, and even some more restrictions
the problem is no matter what we suggest, all we get it
"its not enough! ban them all!"
once ant's are open to a logical discussion, we can continue
That's complete bullshit and typical of gun nutters. When you can't argue the merits, change the argument. You are fooling no one.
I've already said this many times, I would go for a near total ban of all firearms, regardless of type with potential exceptions for say, shotguns stored in the home for home defense. I think we talked about that earlier in this thread when the primary concern was the bear patrol wasn't up to snuff at protecting our children's delicious faces.
Hey dildog, when someone makes an assertion, it's great if they back it up.
Good to see you again jumping in when no one was talking to you, since it is something you complain about on the regs.
I like how you had to pendant it up immediately, adjusting what I said to what you needed it to say.I complain about people jumping in and answering my questions? Really? Perhaps you should.... back that up?
Dollars to doughnuts the best you can do is when I complained about people jumping in and not understanding what was going on. But go ahead and backup your claim.
I like how you had to pendant it up immediately, adjusting what I said to what you needed it to say.
Thank you for making my case perfectly.
Strong counter-point, Bradley.This post of yours must be another example of you having a conversation.
How is it complete bullshit and typical of gun nutters? Just a few responses ago that's exactly what fskimospy asked for.
Wow I was operating on old information. My state lifted the blanket NFA ban a few years ago. I've been not putting in for an SBR and suppressor for absolutely no reason. Wow I feel dumb.
Uhmm, did you not see the rather large caveat to that? What he said and what I said are not even close.
Guns are really such an emotional topic for you. You should get some distance from this to re-align your perspective.Yeah, you just want to ban all rifles, carbines, handguns, and handguns but are fine with shotguns. That's nothing at all like "ban them all". That's kinda like saying you want to ban gays, transgenders, bisexuals, queers, questioning, intersex, pansexual, 2-spirited, asexual, and allies but lesbians are still OK.
Guns are really such an emotional topic for you. You should get some distance from this to re-align your perspective.
We know, and it's a terrible argument you're making.I'd argue that the anti-2A'ers are the ones operating on emotion here.
Yeah, you just want to ban all rifles, carbines, handguns, and handguns but are fine with shotguns. That's nothing at all like "ban them all". That's kinda like saying you want to ban gays, transgenders, bisexuals, queers, questioning, intersex, pansexual, 2-spirited, asexual, and allies but lesbians are still OK.
That has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard and it doesn't merit a response. As to my larger point you are correct, exempting an extremely common type of firearm is nowhere even remotely close to 'banning them all'. I mean this is just common sense.
If you guys can't discuss this issue rationally without resorting to dishonest representations then it's not possible to discuss.
That has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard and it doesn't merit a response. As to my larger point you are correct, exempting an extremely common type of firearm is nowhere even remotely close to 'banning them all'. I mean this is just common sense.
If you guys can't discuss this issue rationally without resorting to dishonest representations then it's not possible to discuss.
extremely common would be exempt?
great, the ar15 is safe. it is the most common rifle sold
I didn't say anything about safety or that commonality was the criterion used. I simply said that saying someone is banning all guns when they are exempting one of the most common types of guns is a false statement.
The amount of pedantry and other rhetorical bullshitting going on from the gun-security forces is really something to behold. You'd think we were threatening their children... oh wait...