Why only quote those 4 words? Don't want to quote the context of a "Well regulated militia?" I don't think this was the intent of the framers.
OT: Gabe Kapler
- Thread starter Knightmoves
- Start date
- Status
LMAO
"Well regulated" is even clearer.
That's it bro. "Western/American/Male culture" is totally under attack.
Australia and Canada are not Western. Everyone there is a woman. They got rid of the men.
Or were you just trying to defend the GRT-based violence because that's exactly what it sounds like, which wouldn't be very surprising.
The entire subject has been covered elsewhere and clearly understood. Courts have adjudicated, scholars have evaluated. You are misunderstanding the "militia issue". It's clearly explained all over the internet.
The intent was for citizens to have the arms to fight off someone like the British again. Up to and including a tyrannical US government.
Misunderstand if you like, but you are wrong.
Let’s start with one simple and bipartisan solution: raise the age to buy a rifle. By federal law, you must be 21 to purchase a handgun, but only 18 to buy a rifle. That’s exactly what the 18-year-old Buffalo shooter did, before killing 10 in a hate-filled rampage. And the 19-year-old shooter in Parkland, killing 17. Now, another teenager has perpetrated a massacre, this time at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
As a coach, I do not speak for the organization, only as an NRA-qualified sharpshooter. I started shooting at 14, and traveled across the country to compete. I was surrounded by mentors and instructors who not only taught me the basics of marksmanship, but also the responsibility of gun ownership. We are leaving young people, especially young men, without any support while providing full access to AR-15s.
There is a reason every terrorist group across the world, from the Taliban to the Klan, recruits isolated young men. Extremism and violence, especially now in decentralized online spaces, can provide a cheap sense of identity, community, and purpose.
But there is a small window for radicalization: The average age of violent offenders is under 25 for nearly every offense. As the brain fully develops, most people age out of extremism and violence.
By offering access to rifles at an early age, our gun policy is aiding and abetting domestic terrorism. We are not giving community members, coaches, mental health specialists, and law enforcement officers enough time to intervene in these young men’s lives.
Raising the age to buy a long gun to 21 has been adopted by some states already. In 2018, then-Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill passed by the Republican-majority state legislature that raised the age to buy long guns to 21. Scott now represents Florida in the U.S. Senate and leads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a group solely devoted to electing Republicans to the Senate.
What are the requirements to purchase a firearm in Florida?
- Must be 21 years of age. Rifles and shotguns may be purchased by a person who is at least 18 when that person is a law enforcement officer or correctional officer as defined in F.S. 943.10 or service member as defined in F.S. 250.01
Last edited:
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
From Justice Scalia, you may remember him from the US Supreme Court.
So you are in fact wrong. Incredibly wrong.
Talking about other nations is pointless and even disingenuous. Those other nations are not the United States, do not have the same cultural issues as the United States, nor the same massive illegal gun issues as the United States. And when it comes to mass shootings, the evidence right here at home strongly suggests that solutions that may have worked elsewhere will not work the same way here. Not when a state like WV, with it's extremely permissive gun laws has so few mass-shootings, and a state like CA with the most restrictive gun laws in the country ranks has so many.
Gun laws can work to limit ordinary gun violence. But they cannot and do not help when it comes to mass shootings. And gun laws would work a whole lot better if they were actually enforced, which time after time in most cases of criminal activity, it's a failure of enforcement. We don't need evidence from anywhere but our own country to see that.
No amount of police training can eliminate the threat of criminals with guns. Because in most parts of the country, the police are much too far away at the moment they're needed. It's a simple time and space problem. The police cannot be everywhere all at once. Every bit of violence, committed by criminals, and every mass shooting is unbelievably obvious evidence of one absolutely unarguable truth: the police, the government, cannot protect us from criminals 24/7 everywhere.
Which leaves good guys with guns to protect themselves. So go ahead, try to demonize away the acts of good people in defending themselves and others. Go ahead and point out that it's imperfect (because perfection is so common with everything else humans do).
But ultimately, while you are free to choose to not take steps to protect yourself from violence, you are not free to choose for the rest of us. Wanna ban criminals from having guns (which is pretty much already banned everywhere), then feel free. I'm right there with you on that. Wanna ban guns from innocent law abiding people seeking to protect themselves from criminals?
Ain't gonna happen. Get the illegal guns from the criminals first. Then we can talk about the rest.
This is the same unsupported ******** you were peddling in the last thread.
It hasn't magically gotten truer or less lazy.
Debates about what the constitution says or doesn't say is pretty much besides the point. There are pragmatic arguments that ought to be prioritized over the academic argument of what the framers of the constitution meant or didn't mean.
The debate is, should people be allowed to defend themselves against well-armed criminals when the police are nowhere near and cannot help? Should citizens be forced to sit around like a deer in the headlights and be preyed upon with no means of self-protection?
Pretty sure the framers of the constitution didn't envision the specific case that a woman in WV would need to shoot some criminal who was attempting to kill a bunch of folks at a birthday party. The problem isn't the woman with her legal gun - she's the hero that saved about 40 people from being murdered.
The problem here is the criminal who, by definition and law, wasn't supposed to have the gun he had, and still had it. The problem is the obviously mentally unfit individual in TX, who by law should never have been able to purchase the guns he bought, because he was flat out crazy and, in his craziness, wanted to kill a bunch of children and would've found a way to do so even if guns never were invented.
Wanna make a valid argument for why people don't need guns or why we need more gun laws? First solve the problem of the convicted felon who has a gun the law already says he's not supposed to have. Take guns away from criminals and mentally unstable people first.
Otherwise, we have 40 more dead innocent people from the birthday party. Because we took away the gun that prevented all those deaths, leaving the illegal guns used by the criminals and those intent upon mass murder.
The debate is, should people be allowed to defend themselves against well-armed criminals when the police are nowhere near and cannot help? Should citizens be forced to sit around like a deer in the headlights and be preyed upon with no means of self-protection?
Pretty sure the framers of the constitution didn't envision the specific case that a woman in WV would need to shoot some criminal who was attempting to kill a bunch of folks at a birthday party. The problem isn't the woman with her legal gun - she's the hero that saved about 40 people from being murdered.
The problem here is the criminal who, by definition and law, wasn't supposed to have the gun he had, and still had it. The problem is the obviously mentally unfit individual in TX, who by law should never have been able to purchase the guns he bought, because he was flat out crazy and, in his craziness, wanted to kill a bunch of children and would've found a way to do so even if guns never were invented.
Wanna make a valid argument for why people don't need guns or why we need more gun laws? First solve the problem of the convicted felon who has a gun the law already says he's not supposed to have. Take guns away from criminals and mentally unstable people first.
Otherwise, we have 40 more dead innocent people from the birthday party. Because we took away the gun that prevented all those deaths, leaving the illegal guns used by the criminals and those intent upon mass murder.
Last edited:
The fact that you keep resorting to insults or demonization without offering any logical or factual relevant rebuttal tells me you cannot come up with one.
Seems to me, demonizing without taking the time to form a logical, factual, and relevant rebuttal is what's lazy and false.
Yeah, this is a no-brainer for me. I think it would be an easy and reasonable requirement.
Why didn’t he use a bow and arrow or knife when he was 16 or 17 years old? Your argument that he would have killed the same without a gun. Why did he wait until 18 when he could buy a gun?
stop with the BS, no one called him crazy. Yes, after he killed 19 kids, you can call him crazy. You wouldn’t be able to recognize a mentally unstable person. Was Oj Simpson crazy? There were so many serial killers that no one knew until they were caught. Are the road rage killers crazy or just out of control for a couple of minutes?
To recap one, the argument that folks in the areas with the least crime need guns the most because "the polices can't get thar quick enough" is one you fabricated out of nothing and runs entirely contrary to actual facts.
I know that anyone that had their kid killed in a mass shooting they will immediately change their stance about gun control.
The attack on western American male culture ...lmao. You can't even script that level of delusion.
No I didn't ignore them. I argued against them with logic, relevance and facts.
What takes place in other nations is largely irrelevant here. Meanwhile, we have more accurate and relevant data right here in the US to use. And the data supports what I have said all along, which is that gun laws can work, to some limited degree, with certain types of gun violence. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they can work with mass murder type violence. The very fact that mass murder wasn't invented subsequent to the invention of guns proves the point.
All anybody can do is say, well, if we take all the legal guns out of the hands of all the non-violent people, then there will be less gun violence. And that's true. However, that also means that non-violent people will then be completely defenseless against violent people with guns.
Tell me how preventing the woman in WV from having a gun would've helped those 40 people at the birthday party who were attacked by a violent criminal with an illegal gun?
Who said we should have prevented the woman in WV from having a gun? Besides you, I mean.
BTW just broadly declaring "what takes place in other countries is largely irrelevant here" is not actually arguing a fact or logic. It's just disregarding actual facts that are inconvenient to your own position.
This is false. There are no facts that support a conclusion that, in the United States, eliminating legal gun ownership will prevent mass murders. There is only evidence that certain gun laws can lesson the amount of gun violence. And I haven't argued against that at all. I 100% agree that certain gun laws can help with ordinary gun violence.
Again, tell me how preventing the woman in WV from having a gun would've helped those 40 innocent people under attack from a violent criminal.
And what is your answer to a gas station operator in a rural area of the country, who is shot and killed while being robbed in the middle of night. Tough luck?
Pretty much ALL parents everywhere in the United States would agree that we should keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychotics. Which happens to be the law everywhere already.
The problem is that people get distracted with this irrational "ban guns" nonsense when they should be talking about how to better enforce existing gun laws, which is actually logical and achievable. This shooter in TX was not mentally stable. So TX should do a better job of enforcement of laws preventing the sale of guns to mentally unstable people. Background checks that leverage every bit of technology available to scan the internet for evidence of red flags would've prevented this kid from obtaining a firearm legally.
The next problem is how to prevent such a person from obtaining a weapon illegally. This is a harder problem to solve. But since it's predominately criminals or the mentally unbalanced that go around shooting up children, I would sure like it if that's where we focused our efforts, rather than on taking away guns from people who don't go around shooting anybody.
Pro Tip: A debate works best if you respond to what people say and don't just argue against yourself.
Chicago had 50 people shot this past weekend and I believe 9 died. Yet so many people and media choose to ignore it and don’t seem interested in reporting on it or doing anything about It. Wonder why ? I think we all know why .
And a gas station operator in the middle of the night, lmao. 1. He can keep his gun. 2. Self-serve pumps are legal throughout rural parts of the country, eliminating the need for anyone to be there in the middle of the night. 3. Bulletproof glass.
Any other random easily answered deflections,, or can we focus on the actual problem?
Any other random easily answered deflections,, or can we focus on the actual problem?
This says otherwise:
Why San Francisco Is Nearly The Most Crime-Ridden City In The US
San Franciscans face about a 1-in-16 chance each year of being a victim of property or violent crime, which makes the city more dangerous than 98 percent of US cities, both small and large. To put this in perspective, Compton, California, the infamous home of drug gang turf wars, and which today...
You’re more likely to be a victim of a crime in SF than 98% of places in the country.
please link to your research stating otherwise.
There were plenty of red flags with this kid before he purchased a gun. The problem isn't that he couldn't be spotted in advance; emerging evidence makes it clear he was not someone who should be sold a gun. The problem is nobody made any real effort to check. Solve that problem and this kid doesn't get a gun legally.
You'll still have to solve the problem of him getting a gun illegally. Or the problem of him deciding to drive a pickup truck over the kids on the playground or while they're queued up outside waiting on buses. But it would sure be nice if a background check could at least do a pre-sale check of the same easy-to-check stuff people checked after it was much too late.
And are you seriously trying to argue that people who plan to kill a bunch of little kids decide to do so years earlier and just wait around until they can purchase a gun to actually do it? If so, why don't all mass shooters do their killing on their 18th birthday, or whatever age is legal in their states?
If it's easy access to guns that are the problem in mass shootings, why does WV (a state with extremely permissive gun laws) have less mass shootings than CA (a states with the most restrictive gun laws)?
Last edited:
Are you just going to troll, like Gabe Kapler is doing? Or are you going to propose anything that is focused on the actual problem?
I've proposed a bunch of stuff, between the two threads, to directly address the problem, that has a hope of being implemented. Get guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. Do better background checks using available technology to help. Implement magazine limits for long guns in more states. Etc. All stuff that could be implemented here in the US.
What exactly are you focused on, besides trolling?
The laws most, including me, want to b enacted keep gun ownership for the good guys in place, but keep the right to own a gun from bad actors.
Also for AR15 "semi-assault sporting weapons" they will be put in a special classification and special permits needed to be obtained to buy one after a complete background check and waiting period to pick it up after original purchase made.
Also magazines that are basically mass murder friendly need to be kept off the regular market and only purchased with a special permit.
Gun safety needs to be stressed so safety features in guns so those that are not the owners can't use them easily because of locking device put in place when not on the owners person or close by where they can be observed so others can't get hold of them easily without the owner knowing .
Gun insurance needs to be part of ownership, making sure any victim of that gun will be properly compensated if it's used in a reckless manner and owner can't pay damages on his own, like auto insurance is there for.
Mental health check needs to be put in place so anyone that has a mental issue can't slip through cracks and buy a gun , them be called the cause of mass murder because some people don't want to admit gun reform is needed to keep children safe and the rest of public as well..
Also sage storage of weapons kept at home need to be addressed, any gun in house must be secured in a safe place that is hard to access when the gun owner and/or authorized handler is away from the living quarters and gun(s) left behind..
Crimminals steakl guns not locked away, so making it a little harder for the bad guy to stale a gun is the reasoning for securing them when no ones home.
What the heck is wrong with some people when it comes to making the streets, stores , religious gathering places, schools and any place people congregate or be alone in from bad actors with guns.
No one wants the good people to lose the right to carry, it's the bad actors that are the concern and too many people go out of their way protecting the bad guy;s abilituy to purchas a gun legaly and have weapons easy to steal because they are easily accessed during a burglary.
Next time a mass shooting happens, ask yourself if you tried in any form to prevent it and the thoughts and prayers route has proved a failure so don't try and use that as what you attempted to help.
I belive in the right to carry, but also believe gun laws need to be strong enough to keep the undesirables from legally purchasing a gun and semi auto wepons that can be used to kill a large amount of people quickly need to be severly restricted, but with proper vetting can bebought after being throuly checked out and having how they are stored and insured part of getting the special permit to buy one.
Something needs to be done and those trying to make gun laws look like they will take away the right to own a un away from the law-abiding are only helping the ones that need to be kept away from guns have more easily access to obtaining a weapon legally.
No one's trying to keep the law abiding from gun ownership, those who want you to believe that are lying to you and making you part of the problem of having the bad people get guns and use them for killing other people including school children
Exactly. And in a bunch of these school shootings, we discover, after the fact, that the perpetrator gave plenty of signs that there were problems.
Maybe we should be sniffing those red flags during mandatory background checks. Perhaps the NRA would object. But it sure seems like an obvious thing to do, to me at least.
This is provably untrue. There are lots of folks who want to ban all guns. I had dinner with a close friend who said, and I quote: "if I had my way, I'd ban all guns" a couple days ago. And this is not an uncommon sentiment. I have family members who want to "ban all guns".
You and I may not be trying to prevent the law abiding from gun ownership. But plenty of people, including in this forum, want very much to do so.
But unless a problem is addressed in a manner that helps end the problem or at least make that problem harder to happen, that problem will always be a problem that constantly pops up .
Saying nothing can be done is not a solution, but part of the problem.
Fair and balanced gun law shouldn't be that hard to enact, what makes it hard is some people claim a little inconvenience is a total ban because they can't just walk into a WaWa and buy any gun they please along with a 100 round clip to go with it.
They have to prove worthy and wait to tale possession after the waiting period is over.
That inconvenience makes them fight laws made in hope of keeping kids from being killed work better then the laws on the books do now.
Good people using guns to protect good people happen all the time,good people making mistakes with their guns happen all the time as well.
Both are realy not part of the gun law issue, just part of owing a gun that shows the god and bad side of the way people use their weapons
Do you belive gun laws are working now and protecting people , so they don't need to be reformed, just more guns sold will do the trick.
Or gun laws meant to keep people's second amendment rights be put in place, but stronger laws made so those who shouldn't be able to access guns legally or illegally be made that respect the right of gun ownership but are meant to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands.
That includs an innocent 6 year old that finds an unattended gun , picks it up and shoots his/her brother or sister possibly killing them.
Didn't someone say that getting personal is what you do when you don't have an argument? Wasn't me, but I seem to remember the sentiment.
BTW, don't think you actually grasp the meaning of trolling. Or is it the meaning of self awareness? Maybe I'm mixing them up.
"Getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" isn't the actionable solution you seem to think it is, but ok. About as useful of a suggestion as solving world hunger by getting food into the hands of the hungry.
I Said it quite clearly last thread: Put everything on the table. Stop arguing about what we can't do and start finding things we can. Gun regs, mental health reform, school security and design, all of it.
And by that, I mean actual leaders hired and paid to address these problems, not message board warriors. It ain't getting solved on TKR.
My Problem with your stance is that you're trying to take a large piece of the topic off the table. I haven't seen anyone say, We can't look at mental health because of the potential for rights infringement ...because that topic is absolutely fraught with those problems. School security - we've already actively done a bunch of that to the point children and teachers have to actively do drills to prepare, walk through metal detectors to get to school, watch police forces with dogs scouring over the property ahead of graduation, etc. Plenty of that going on despite the inherent right of children not to go to school in a near police state.
So wtf do you think that gun regs are somehow excused from the conversation?
Except no one in this forum said that (except you and those agreeing with you) in like 18 pages on this topic.
I will agree there are those that want to ban all guns, but those nuts shouldn't be the reason any sane person feels sensible gun control laws need to be opposed.
Since Sandy Hook gun laws have been fought tooth and nail
The result of that opposition shows in the number of children killed from then to this latest massacre of school kids in Texas.
I find it hard to understand the resoning that allows that to happen, knowing it will happen again unless some kide of change is made andthe sell more gun method doesn't work, guards in schools aren't working and arming the teacher you plan to fire for assignin g books you don't like seems like a far fetched idea.
These threads always expose how little leftists understand about firearms.
Whatever adjustment to gun laws they might need in TX is something folks in TX will have to figure out and decide for themselves.
I'd recommend better pre-purchase background checks for guns and much better school security, to start. In this day and age of high technology, there's no way this kid's social media commentary should've gone without generating some red flags that were picked up during a pre-purchase background check, IMO. And how the hell a kid wearing body armor and carrying a rifle was able to get into a school is mind boggling to me. How many of these incidents have to occur before people stop thinking "never in my neighborhood"?
I wouldn't recommend arming teachers. I would argue for more security cameras around school neighborhoods along with threat scanning software. And I would not throw away school guards; I would conduct a review and fix what isn't working, not just discard it.
But again, TX and every other state will need to figure out how to address the problem. And the states ought to closely examine why CA (with it's super tough gun laws) has so many school shootings and WV (with almost no gun laws) doesn't. There are lessons to be learned from that inconsistency; from the apparent lack of correlation.
MADHAT1 said:This says otherwise:
Why San Francisco Is Nearly The Most Crime-Ridden City In The US
San Franciscans face about a 1-in-16 chance each year of being a victim of property or violent crime, which makes the city more dangerous than 98 percent of US cities, both small and large. To put this in perspective, Compton, California, the infamous home of drug gang turf wars, and which today...www.hoover.org
You’re more likely to be a victim of a crime in SF than 98% of places in the country.
please link to your research stating otherwise.
You realize San Francisco isn't even close to one of the most dangerous and crime filled cities in America?
__________________________________________________________________________
could you please show the message I was relying to, I know it's another thread and not this one and would like to know what I was replying to and possible research I provided in that thread about safe cities than might have been posted before that message ( if I posted any research)
The article you posted only says SF's unsafe and makes it look worse than Compton.
but really isn't a deep dive into gun violence, property crimes and violent crimes are mentioned in that study . in which is basically what this thread is about .
Is thus what you want
> San Francisco police on Wednesday released crime data from 2021, showing that murders across the city are up compared to previous years.
According to the numbers, the city had 56 homicides in 2021, up from 48 in 2020, and 41 in 2019.
"Sadly, this is not just a San Francisco trend, this is a national trend and this is something that is truly concerning for all of us," Police Chief Bill Scott said. "Fifty-six is homicides for San Francisco is a big deal and it's something we're committed to turning around."<
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loc...scuss-citys-crime-over-the-last-year/2790381/
10 Most Dangerous Cities in the US for 2021 | SafeWise
Here are the 10 most dangerous cities in the US for 2021
1. Anchorage, Alaska2. Memphis, Tennessee Mississippi-Arkansas
3. Lubbock, Texas
4. Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, Michigan
5. Springfield, Missouri
6. San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, California
7. Corpus Christi, Texas
8. Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana
9. Stockton, California
10. Bakersfield, California
https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/
but again this thread is about trying to make the unsafe cities safer from gun violence, while gun reform keeps guns in the hands of good people while trying to keep the bad people from accessing guns.
Bringing in the SF message doesn't address what this thread is about.
Bump that one so it can be another conversation without making it part of this one.
Even though am helping hijack this one with my reply, hoping to end the hijack by having you bump the tread my message was in that you brought in here
edit" lol threads already been hijacked from complaints about what someone did because of lack of action to protect kids to " those bastards want my guns"
Last edited:
It is a poorly phrased.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What do the first 4 words mean?
Does anyone being able to purchase any type of weapon jeopardize the security of a free State?
What is meant by Arms? Guns only? Or can a 2nd Amendment absolutist claim Arms means any type of weapon? Including rocket launchers and nuclear bombs?
Did a well regulated militia attack the school and grocery store?
Last edited:
I've been making logical, factually supported arguments and also suggestions that have a hope of making it past SCOTUS. You've been responding to my posts with insults. That's trolling.
In order to truly focus on solving the problem, we have to define the problem. In this case, it's mass shootings. The solutions to which are unlikely to be the same as solving ordinary day to day gun violence. The statistics across the nation support that, whereby gun laws appear to work on ordinary gun violence but appear NOT to be working for school shootings.
We need to acknowledge the things that have been tried and are failing. Like the super strict gun laws in CA. And we cannot ignore or dismiss the stuff that does work, like this woman in WV who shot a would-be mass shooter before he could hurt anybody. Makes no sense at all to ignore what works if we actually want to solve the problem, as opposed to regurgitating ideological cant.
There is clearly something, I don't know what, about CA's laws or culture or whatever, that isn't preventing mass shootings in CA. To ignore that would be moronic. To deflect from that reality to say "but look at this or that other nation where it worked" is demonstrably unhelpful to the folks in CA. We need ideas that can work in CA. Not in Europe. And each state needs to figure out what works - it's not likely that what works in NJ will work the same way in WY.
Yes, you said "put everything on the table". But that's not particularly helpful because some things shouldn't be on the table (e.g. taking away people's ability to protect themselves from armed criminals) and many things simply cannot be implemented today. Which serves only to distract us from finding stuff that can be implemented and can work. You say stop arguing about what we cannot do. I disagree. We are merely wasting time talking about stuff that has no hope of being implemented (if for no other reason than the current SCOTUS will never permit it). That's the opposite of being focused.
And lastly, school security, armed guards, mental health - if what has been done so far in those areas isn't working, that doesn't mean we should give up. It means we should figure out WHY they aren't working and how to make them work better. Maybe states should mandate that school doors be constructed in such a way as to be impenetrable using anything shy of explosives. Maybe states should mandate that schools employ technology that makes it impossible to ignore an unlocked or open school door. Maybe states should mandate more sensors and cameras with better tech to make it impossible to ignore when an intruder is in the school. There are problem a hundred different things that should be on the table here. The only thing keeping many off the table is lack of funding. What's a child's life worth?
And for the millionth time, I have never once said or insinuated that gun regulations should be excused from the conversation. Not once. I have listed some potential new regulations that (a) might actually help and (b) have some hope of being implemented in our current political/judicial environment. This is what I mean by trolling. You keep accusing me of something that is demonstrably (within this post and others in this thread) false. That's a form of trolling, forcing me to constantly correct your misrepresentations of my positions.
This is simply incorrect. People have said we should ban all semiautomatic weapons. People, such as you, have pointed to Europe or Australia where they banned handguns, saying why can't we do that here?
If not in this thread, then in the prior thread that got moved to the CE forum. It's possible you failed to note those posts. But the posts exist nonetheless. And the sentiment is widespread.
- Status