"start taking them" from owners who refuse to surrender any illegal firearms through a buy-back program.
How much plainer can it be?
by BizzyBee 246 Replies latest members politics
"start taking them" from owners who refuse to surrender any illegal firearms through a buy-back program.
How much plainer can it be?
ban all guns.
ban semi-automatic guns
How much plainer can it be?
Surely you jest?
People on this very forum have said it. Google and read.
I see, so you're making an assertion you can not back up. That's cool.
You're kind won't stop with semi-autos. Next it will be our deer rifles because they're "too powerful". Then it will be small revolvers because they're "too easy to conceal". After that pump action hunting shotguns because "afterall you could saw off the barrel and make them dangerous". Finally ,22 rimfires "because nobody needs to learn to shoot anymore because there are no guns".
Does that explain it to you? If it doesn't then you an even stupider M***** F***** than I gave you credit for.
You're kind won't stop with semi-autos. Next it will be our deer rifles because they're "too powerful". Then it will be small revolvers because they're "too easy to conceal". After that pump action hunting shotguns because "afterall you could saw off the barrel and make them dangerous". Finally ,22 rimfires "because nobody needs to learn to shoot anymore because there are no guns".
Well if you had only told me from the start that your side of the conversation was going to be nothing more than paranoid fantasy I wouldn't have bothered
Sheesh
Was looking back at the comments from the beginning of the thread and couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of this comment from moshe:
" Obama is just angry at Americans who own firerearms, because he couldn't pass pass a federal background check and legally buy a firearm of his own.- ie, If you can't pass e-Verify, you won't pass a BATF background check."
So, Obama is able to create himself some fake documentation to make his citizenship (and his presidency) appear legal, but he can't do the same to obtain a firearm? That is hilarious.
Hell Beks every conversation we have is fantasy. My fantasy that you're worth my time and your fantasy that your intelligence is above f***tard level.
You have a nice life and try not to hurt yourself too much.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105337/yes-really-ban-all-the-guns#
http://americablog.com/2012/12/its-time-to-ban-guns-completely.html
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a35141107/we_should_ban_all_guns._isnt_it_just_common_sense
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/videos/ex-nyc-mayor-ed-koch-ban-all-guns/
From this very thread:
No bombs, no mass destruction. No guns, no shootings. How stupid does a person need to be NOT to understand this?
There you go. People are calling for it.
There you go. People are calling for it.
Sure they are. There are also people calling for impeachment. There are also people calling for lynching.
But I think reasonable people can assume that, when the pro-gun side refers to a call to "ban all guns," they are talking about people in positions of power - i.e., house, senate, etc., not some extremist on a blog.
EP, you are being disingenuous. I held you to a higher standard of debate. You are proving yourself to be no different than the brainwashed masses.
EP, you are being disingenuous. I held you to a higher standard of debate. You are proving yourself to be no different than the brainwashed masses.
I am being nothing of the sort. Show where you think I have been. Beks asked for something and she got it. You are proving to be something that, rather than debate, simply chooses to attack the messenger. Ed Koch, a former mayor of New York, one of those people in power, is calling for it. Your attempt at dismissal is a fail on many levels.
Develop a defensible argument and argue it. Attacking the messenger simply shows the weakness of your own position.