And of course all evidence is significant to those who have no knwledge of statistics, cause and effect, and of course are incapable of actually going past stereotypical thinking to deal with actual facts.
Please feel free to provide evidence that the above mentioned want to confiscate/ban all guns. Be specific with actual statements if you can.
Actually Not sure what exact legislation you are referring to. Please provide a link to Whatever piece of actual legislation you are talking about, assuming of course there is any and you have actually read the bill. Three second excerpt from a speech doesn't provide much intelligent grounds for discussion or any actual evidence of anything.
That does not answer the question. How many cosponsors have to sign onto a piece of legislation that enacts significant firearm restrictions, and significant penalties for noncompliance, before it is no longer considered an extreme example among a group, but is rather regarded as typical of the entire group?
""If I could have banned them all -- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' -- I would have!" she said in a quote that endures as a rallying cry for the growing legion of "Mr. and Mrs. Americas" who fear 'Diane' Feinstein's ultimate aim is to criminalize private ownership of firearms." Diane Feinstein Ted Keneddy, Chuck Schumer, Bloomberg,
We already decded that Feinstein is an outlier. Got quotes from your other supposed ban all gun advocates?
You got busted and now you are lashing out wildly like a mortally wounded animal. Fun to watch you in your death throes.
The reality is that there is a vision of a gun free America in future generations by liberal legislators. They know it is a long process and the timing isn't right to call for an outright ban. To do so would be political suicide. They want to keep their jobs above all else. Calling for restrictions under the guise of common sense regulations is the best they can do right now. They are praying for a liberal president to be elected who will in turn appoint at least one, and probably multiple Supreme Court justices. Until then, they will chisel away at the state levels to impose whatever restrictions they can shove down the throats of their constituents. Hillary is on record saying that she favors the Austrailian gun control model. She says she will build on what Obama has started with his EO's. Recognize that disarming America is a multi generation process that will be fought by taking what they can get, one battle at a time.
I guess you fail to understand that if a politician wants to ban a certain class of guns in order to pander to slow witted hysterics in the voting population or to set a precedent for gun banning, there is nothing to prevent him from moving on to another ban. Once someone has decided that banning any type of gun is a proper response to anything, that person is a gun banner
Good to know you enjoy death throes. Hope you enjoy the next Democratic President and the end of the fruit loop gun nut lobby. - - - Updated - - - Nice to hear your opinion. Awaiting your posting of actual facts.
Now that is an amazing bit of logic. So To carry your logic further if we want to ban hate speech we want to ban all speach. And if we want to restrict some immigration we want to ban all immigration. And if we want to ..... Got any actual idea how idiotic your position is yet or do you need more examples? .
Of course those with limited intellect will try disparagement instead of intelligent discussion. But hey, you all do what your limited capabilities allow you to do.
"It's "worth considering" whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire. A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure to run into intense political opposition. Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea. "Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings" she said. "Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67
like most banoids, you confuse possession with use. Hate speech is harmful USE of speech. The equivalent analogy to guns is banning FELONIOUS ASSAULT with a weapon. BTW police cannot engage in hate speech. NO citizen can. so again your moronic argument fails because you want to ban guns that you think police ought to be able to own again, you aren't going to be able to come up with some argument I haven't shredded in the past. You're hear to whine about gun owners because I bet again you are a big fan of Obama - - - Updated - - - limited intellect=pretending that laws that are directed at people who don't misuse guns and who own them legally will actually deter those who commit armed robbery, murder or rape
There is no intelligent discussion to be had with the gun grabbers. You and your ilk can keep trying to squeeze America in your little fascist hands all you want. The more you attack us the stronger we get. There is one thing I love about Obama and his administration: they have solidified groups of people that are tired of their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) into a unified force and through their actions have sold more guns in this country than ever. The American people are telling you what they think of your argument with every record-breaking month of gun sales.
If one follows the news pertaining to colleges in the united states, the growing trend of supposed micro aggression, and the marginalization of minority students, a great many things could be construed as hate speech.
Here is you actual statement: I guess you fail to understand that if a politician wants to ban a certain class of guns in order to pander to slow witted hysterics in the voting population or to set a precedent for gun banning, there is nothing to prevent him from moving on to another ban. Once someone has decided that banning any type of gun is a proper response to anything, that person is a gun banner Doesn't say anything about use that I can read. But nce try. Or perhaps you just don't understand how laws work.
we ought to compare our knowledge of gun laws. who do you think will win? I'll start-24 years as a DOJ attorney. Gun laws were one of my specialties. IN private practice before GHWB appointed me to the DOJ, I represented 2 major gun dealers (over 4000 firearms a year in sales) a TITLE II manufacturer (machine guns) and the largest 100% NRA organization in the midwest. plus counsel for an insurance carrier that insured two different counties' Sheriff's departments (wrongful shootings etc) Your turn - - - Updated - - - we don't see intelligent discussion from the Banoid front since the Banoid front isn't even honest about its true motivations
Your premise that Diane Feinstein is some kind of rogue individual is what is setting new paradigms of ridiculousness. The attempt to defund FFL's and arms makers via Operation Chokepoint, the attempt to make the SSA a militant gun grabbing organization, the examination of banning discussion of weapons via print or electronic format, the continual bills put forward trying to make legal gun owners felons. Keep playing stupid though, you're pretty good at it but you're fooling no one.
I accept your paranoia. But somehow I bet none of your gins have been grabbed, nor do I suspect you have been branded a felon, at least not for your gun ownership.
Conversation with a person whose intent is to mindlessly ban guns and then cherry picks whatever statement is most suitable ? Diane Feinstein has admitted to owning guns and a CCW while advocating for gun control. So have many other politicians. Gun control can only look good cloaked in lies, once you shine the light of truth on gun control, they scatter like bugs fleeing the light for darkness.
I accept your willful ignorance. No, they have not, and no I am not, thanks to the actions of those defending our freedoms.
