Seriously, Michigan?

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Agree with your first sentence in reference to my opinion on the matter too.  Could get on board with most of what you wrote; however, I am not sure how you define "assault rifle" as there is no such thing.  Some rifles look different aesthetically, but by all accounts are the same as a majority of hunting rifles in terms of how fast they can shoot and ability to shoot multiple rounds.  Sorry to burst your bubble but there are no such thing as "assault rifles".  This is a made-up label the media and politicians created to scare people who don't understand guns.  People think because guns look different, they perform, or are used differently.  What you want to ban is what my dad has used gun hunting for probably 10 years.  My .270 probably could do more damage than his AR.  Also, I disagree with the minimum age of 21...at 18 you are an adult and thus should be able to purchase a gun.

All words and phrases are "made up".   It is the nature of language.   The dictionary has a definition. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

18 is a tweener and is too young for guns.

[mspart]

27 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

All words and phrases are "made up".   It is the nature of language.   The dictionary has a definition. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

18 is a tweener and is too young for guns.

Are they too young to commit a felony and be sentenced as an adult?   Are they too young to be an informed voter?   Are they too young to drink?  Are they too young to volunteer for the military?

I agree that today's 18 year olds are not near as mature as they were 30 years ago or 20 years ago.   But that doesn't mean the questions above are wrong to ask.

mspart

[mspart]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire

also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

 

From the definition supplied in an earlier post.   I'm confused by this definition. 

 

Is it an intermediate range weapon?

Is it a weapon that has a magazine?

Is it an AK-47?

Is it one that can be set to automatic or semi automatic?

 

The dictionary then uses a trick they are never to use, which is using the word or phrase in the definition.   By this definition, the rifle I highlighted earlier would not be an assault rifle.  It cannot be set to Automatic and certainly does not resemble an military rifle.  Yet I have 30 round magazines for it.   So I'm in the clear I guess.

 

mspart

 

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Are they too young to commit a felony and be sentenced as an adult?   Are they too young to be an informed voter?   Are they too young to drink?  Are they too young to volunteer for the military?

I agree that today's 18 year olds are not near as mature as they were 30 years ago or 20 years ago.   But that doesn't mean the questions above are wrong to ask.

mspart

Asked and answered!  Don't forget consuming tobacco and cannabis.

[BerniePragle]

7 hours ago, Nailbender said:

What would you like to see happen to prevent gun violence?

A couple of things off the top of my head:

1)  Everytime there is a conviction of a felony which involves a firearm, have a determination of how the perpetrator obtained the gun.  In the normal world, this is called Root Cause Analysis.  It's a process of determining how/why things happen.  This would never happen because in most cases eventually there would be a line drawn to gun and ammo dealers and manufacturers.  Their cash cow is protected by their wise investments in lobbyists and politicians in Washington.

2)  Outlaw the sale of body armor to private citizens.  No, I'm not kidding.  Am I not correct in saying that the majority of mass shootings anymore are commited  by some jackwagon with a weapon that shouldn't be in civilian hands in my opinion (but no thanks I'm not gonna get into the semantics BS of "assult rifle"), outfitted in his body armor.  I would ask, Why does any private citizen need body armor, but that would be too close to the Why does any private citizen need...
I'm assuming here that the body armor manufacturers don't control as many lawmakers as the gun and ammo manufacturers do.

[Nailbender]

At first I blamed myself for the unanswered questions. Thought maybe I was too cross with a couple other members here and I wasn't going to get a response because of it. I thought that was fair enough. Then I realized @Plasmodium answered my easy question. Just skipped the more difficult ones. 

 

 

@mspart I agree, that definition is pretty vague, then again maybe that's the intention. Nobody wants to get all tangled up in what government intervention would actually look like. "We just need to do something". Well....."we" don't, politicians do. That will surely solve this.

 

We have a gun store owner who comes every year and gives the trap team a lecture on gun safety. He is a former LEO and has seen gun violence up close. His talk is far from what others might see as a gun safety lesson. He has a section where he addresses suicide by gun of adolescents (a MAJOR statistic in this conversation). Whether suicide or murder, he says one thing kids can do to help stop gun deaths is to talk to each other. When you see a classmate who's not themself, ask them what's wrong. Take interest in them. Be a friend or at least be friendly. A few more parents teaching that would go a lot farther than nonsensical laws that in the end only violate the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[Nailbender]

2 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

A couple of things off the top of my head:

1)  Everytime there is a conviction of a felony which involves a firearm, have a determination of how the perpetrator obtained the gun.  In the normal world, this is called Root Cause Analysis.  It's a process of determining how/why things happen.  This would never happen because in most cases eventually there would be a line drawn to gun and ammo dealers and manufacturers.  Their cash cow is protected by their wise investments in lobbyists and politicians in Washington.

2)  Outlaw the sale of body armor to private citizens.  No, I'm not kidding.  Am I not correct in saying that the majority of mass shootings anymore are commited  by some jackwagon with a weapon that shouldn't be in civilian hands in my opinion (but no thanks I'm not gonna get into the semantics BS of "assult rifle"), outfitted in his body armor.  I would ask, Why does any private citizen need body armor, but that would be too close to the Why does any private citizen need...
I'm assuming here that the body armor manufacturers don't control as many lawmakers as the gun and ammo manufacturers do.

Thanks for the response. 

How would either of those two things help to stop gun violence? 

[BerniePragle]

6 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

Thanks for the response. 

How would either of those two things help to stop gun violence? 

Either my logic is flawed, or that should be obvious.

[Nailbender]

Just now, BerniePragle said:

Either my logic is flawed, or that should be obvious.

Tracking how criminals get guns would be great information. I'm all for it. I believe there is some data out there already but I'm not sure. If the ultimate goal is to blame gun manufacturers for crimes committed with guns.......I don't agree. "People shoot a bunch of innocents because...guns" is not logic I'm following. Can you help me out?

I don't know the statistics for the number of mass murders that wear body armor.  I also fail to see how not selling it will stop someone from shooting people? 

[BerniePragle]

1 minute ago, Nailbender said:

Tracking how criminals get guns would be great information. I'm all for it. I believe there is some data out there already but I'm not sure. If the ultimate goal is to blame gun manufacturers for crimes committed with guns.......I don't agree. "People shoot a bunch of innocents because...guns" is not logic I'm following. Can you help me out?

I don't know the statistics for the number of mass murders that wear body armor.  I also fail to see how not selling it will stop someone from shooting people? 

Tracking how criminals get guns. Exactly.  Why do you suppose we don't do that?  My assertion is that ultimately it would cost the gun manufacturers sales and that's why it's not done.  Money.  Sad.

The second one was half tongue in cheek.  It just seems that a lot of these idiots that shoot up a school, supermarket,  whatever have body armor on.  The same reason they have the preferred weapon... the image, it's cool.  It just simply glorifies this sort of thing.  I've also said these military wannabes should join the service and take their talents to Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever.

It is a complex issue,  but as long as the NRA can keep everyone arguing the semantics of "assault rifle", you don't have to worry about anything getting done.  The ones making money are protected.  That's truly what's important in Washington,  sadly.

[Plasmodium]

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

@Plasmodium Please help me to understand your point of view. I'd like to discuss this, I think we both think it's important.

What makes a gun a weapon of war or an assault rifle? Do you think that's an important distinction? If we're going to ban them, I do.

Do those weapons kill people more than other weapons? Do they somehow make it easier to kill people? Are they somehow more dangerous? Again, I think these answers matter.

If these weapons are banned as you would like to see, what happens when school shooters use more pistols or shotguns? Ban them too or another solution?

You really aren't shocked when someone kills 10 innocent children? I will always be shocked, I'll never understand that. In fact, I think I'm more shocked and disgusted each time.

I have more questions but I really hope you or someone who feels the same way you do would answer these first few. 

If a class of guns is designed by the military to be an offensive weapon, it is an assault rifle.

Of course they increase the efficiency of killing people.  That is their sole purpose.  In the las  Vegas concert shooting, a more than 60 year old man with little gun experience and zero military experience killed 59 people in under 90 seconds.

IDK what to do about all guns.  I know if there aren't some creative solutions put forth by all sides, one side in particular is going to be extremely unhinged sooner rather than later.

I don't understand how a predictable event can be characterized as shocking.  We all know it is going to happen, we just don't know when and where.  How is it shocking when the bell tolls for rural KY rather than suburban MSP?  The 25th anniversary of Columbine is upon us and we have not made a single change that will get our society past this.  Nothing!! Endless crocodile tears, thoughts and prayers.

[Plasmodium]

44 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

At first I blamed myself for the unanswered questions. Thought maybe I was too cross with a couple other members here and I wasn't going to get a response because of it. I thought that was fair enough. Then I realized @Plasmodium answered my easy question. Just skipped the more difficult ones. 

 

 

@mspart I agree, that definition is pretty vague, then again maybe that's the intention. Nobody wants to get all tangled up in what government intervention would actually look like. "We just need to do something". Well....."we" don't, politicians do. That will surely solve this.

 

We have a gun store owner who comes every year and gives the trap team a lecture on gun safety. He is a former LEO and has seen gun violence up close. His talk is far from what others might see as a gun safety lesson. He has a section where he addresses suicide by gun of adolescents (a MAJOR statistic in this conversation). Whether suicide or murder, he says one thing kids can do to help stop gun deaths is to talk to each other. When you see a classmate who's not themself, ask them what's wrong. Take interest in them. Be a friend or at least be friendly. A few more parents teaching that would go a lot farther than nonsensical laws that in the end only violate the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

I am at work.

[Nailbender]

4 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Tracking how criminals get guns. Exactly.  Why do you suppose we don't do that?  My assertion is that ultimately it would cost the gun manufacturers sales and that's why it's not done.  Money.  Sad.

The second one was half tongue in cheek.  It just seems that a lot of these idiots that shoot up a school, supermarket,  whatever have body armor on.  The same reason they have the preferred weapon... the image, it's cool.  It just simply glorifies this sort of thing.  I've also said these military wannabes should join the service and take their talents to Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever.

It is a complex issue,  but as long as the NRA can keep everyone arguing the semantics of "assault rifle", you don't have to worry about anything getting done.  The ones making money are protected.  That's truly what's important in Washington,  sadly.

There actually are some people at the ATF who do at least some of that. According to an article from PBS the ATF (or AFT if you're president Biden) says the #1 way criminals get guns is through straw purchases. That tactic is already against the law. It also has nothing to do with gun manufacturers.

As far as body armor, I don't own it. It's not high on my list for future purchases either. I'm just not wired to tell other people what they "need" as you have already indicated. I also don't like solutions that put the burden of stopping gun violence on the law abiding.

  I don't know where these people belong but I don't believe they have any "talents", that might be part of their problem.

The term "assault rifle" isn't important. It's just indicative of how much thought someone has put into the subject.  It's also a red herring. The vast amount of gun deaths are caused by handguns.

[BerniePragle]

3 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

There actually are some people at the ATF who do at least some of that. According to an article from PBS the ATF (or AFT if you're president Biden) says the #1 way criminals get guns is through straw purchases. That tactic is already against the law. It also has nothing to do with gun manufacturers.

As far as body armor, I don't own it. It's not high on my list for future purchases either. I'm just not wired to tell other people what they "need" as you have already indicated. I also don't like solutions that put the burden of stopping gun violence on the law abiding.

  I don't know where these people belong but I don't believe they have any "talents", that might be part of their problem.

The term "assault rifle" isn't important. It's just indicative of how much thought someone has put into the subject.  It's also a red herring. The vast amount of gun deaths are caused by handguns.

If the #1 way the "bad guys" get guns is through straw purchases,  why do you suppose nothing is done about that?  I'm curious what your answer is.  I'll give you mine... ultimately it's still a sale for manufacturers and dealers.  There's a demand, they'll fill it and replenish the supply. 

You asked for suggestions.   Neither of my suggestions place any burden on the tried and true "law abiding gun owner".  Correct?

Again and again, why is nothing done?  Plain and simple,  money.  It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, law abiding gun owners, etc, etc.  An outsized influence by the NRA and gun manufacturers on our political and legal system.

[Nailbender]

4 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

If the #1 way the "bad guys" get guns is through straw purchases,  why do you suppose nothing is done about that?  I'm curious what your answer is.  I'll give you mine... ultimately it's still a sale for manufacturers and dealers.  There's a demand, they'll fill it and replenish the supply. 

You asked for suggestions.   Neither of my suggestions place any burden on the tried and true "law abiding gun owner".  Correct?

Again and again, why is nothing done?  Plain and simple,  money.  It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, law abiding gun owners, etc, etc.  An outsized influence by the NRA and gun manufacturers on our political and legal system.

Straw purchases would be easier to go after than new laws! It's already on the books. If Joe Biden wanted to stop straw purchases tomorrow, he could try to do so all on his own. I think he would have a hard time making headway as it's a tough crime to stop but you could definitely make an example out of some people and I would commend him for it(okay maybe that's a stretch :)). Joe Biden isn't getting funding from the gun lobby. If he is, it isn't much or above board because his supporters would eat him alive for it.  

My answer is that politicians don't solve our problems. Lot's of times, they even create them and they definitely like having them around.

 

As long as your first suggestion doesn't involve a gun registry. I'd be all for it.

I can't get on board with outlawing body armor. I won't tell others how to spend their money. I don't want anyone telling me how to spend mine. The reasons to own it are few but they exist. It doesn't hurt anyone and it's none of my business.

 

[Nailbender]

36 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I am at work.

I can appreciate that. I didn't get much done today. I'm sure don't care or wish I wouldn't but I will absolutely address your other post later. 

[BerniePragle]

On 11/24/2022 at 1:27 AM, jross said:

3M of 330M U.S. citizens (1%) die annually.  The causes of death are not limited to:

• Heart disease - 700K
• Cancer - 600K
• Omitted stroke, respiratory, kidney, Alzheimer's, flu, covid, diabetes, etc., from 50K to 350K each.  
• Accidental drug overdose/poison - 85K
• Vehicle accident - 40K
• Homicide by firearm - 19K 
• Abortion - 900K+ (included for visibility; this category is excluded from citizen death count)

0.5% of deaths are caused by homicide from a firearm.  The average citizen has a 0.006% chance of dying from an idiot with a gun.  Your chance of death from a public mass shooting is 0.0~% while over 80M citizens own guns and over 400M guns exist in the U.S.  WTF do people focus on a blip of priorities?  Media and stupidity. 

Leaders should focus on affordability and access to healthy foods and lifestyles. 

The NRA (I'm assuming by following the money) puts a bunch of data and references out there with the specific purpose of the pro-gun faction (incorrectly) inferring things from the data.

Allow me to change things up a little and see what we can infer from this data:

At a rate of about 50 million people dying each year since 1945, there have been about 3.8 billion people died in those subsequent 77 years.
On August 6 and 9, 1945 approx 355,000 people died from atomic weapons.
355,000 ÷ 3,800,000,000 = .009% chance of dying by atomic weapon in 77 years.  Yet, I very clearly remember getting under my desk in air raid drills in the early 60s to protect myself from an atomic bomb.  Cool, huh?
I will add that all of those deaths were in only two cities, 77 years ago.  (A reference to your subsequent post about pockets of gun deaths.)
Should we not have been concerned with atomic weapons, especially with them getting in the wrong hands?  Did we need to cure cancer and solve poor nutrition before we could address atomic weapons?  Should we have endless argued the semantics of atomic weapon, fission bomb, hydrogen bomb, etc such that nothing ever got done)?

[BerniePragle]

13 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

Straw purchases would be easier to go after than new laws! It's already on the books. If Joe Biden wanted to stop straw purchases tomorrow, he could try to do so all on his own. I think he would have a hard time making headway as it's a tough crime to stop but you could definitely make an example out of some people and I would commend him for it(okay maybe that's a stretch :)). Joe Biden isn't getting funding from the gun lobby. If he is, it isn't much or above board because his supporters would eat him alive for it.  

My answer is that politicians don't solve our problems. Lot's of times, they even create them and they definitely like having them around.

 

As long as your first suggestion doesn't involve a gun registry. I'd be all for it.

I can't get on board with outlawing body armor. I won't tell others how to spend their money. I don't want anyone telling me how to spend mine. The reasons to own it are few but they exist. It doesn't hurt anyone and it's none of my business.

 

All of that said nothing constructive.  You asked for suggestions, I offered two.  You danced around both with the usual jargon.

[Nailbender]

12 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

All of that said nothing constructive.  You asked for suggestions, I offered two.  You danced around both with the usual jargon.

     I asked how we could prevent gun violence. Your answer was to track where criminals get their guns. I don't know how that prevents much gun violence but I indulged you. I told you most of them come from straw purchases according to the ATF. I then told you that the ATF could crack down on those avenues tomorrow with no further legislation needed. Both of which are true. I didn't dance around anything. 

    I didn't like #1 but went with it. #2 you said something about body armor that was "half tongue in cheek" now you want credit for it? Fine, you gave one and a half "solutions". The truth is neither of them explains how to prevent much if any gun violence. 

 

 

    

 

[Nailbender]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

If a class of guns is designed by the military to be an offensive weapon, it is an assault rifle.

Of course they increase the efficiency of killing people.  That is their sole purpose.  In the las  Vegas concert shooting, a more than 60 year old man with little gun experience and zero military experience killed 59 people in under 90 seconds.

IDK what to do about all guns.  I know if there aren't some creative solutions put forth by all sides, one side in particular is going to be extremely unhinged sooner rather than later.

I don't understand how a predictable event can be characterized as shocking.  We all know it is going to happen, we just don't know when and where.  How is it shocking when the bell tolls for rural KY rather than suburban MSP?  The 25th anniversary of Columbine is upon us and we have not made a single change that will get our society past this.  Nothing!! Endless crocodile tears, thoughts and prayers.

An offensive weapon as opposed to a defensive one? I didn't realize guns could tell the difference. I don't think that makes much sense. They don't use the gun Art posted in the military.

Unfortunately, the answer is that there is no definition. Even with the last '94 AWB there were countless examples of guns far more lethal that didn't make the list. There isn't much to do with lethality that comes into play with the commonly used definitions. The best definition I have seen is "guns that look cool or scary". The only rhyme nor reason on what constitutes an assault rifle seems to be capacity and a semi-auto action. The first is less about guns and more about magazines, which is a whole separate issue. The second describes a great majority of the rifles used for, well pretty much everything. I get why people who are onboard with gun bans don't want to be bogged down in these details but if it is going to become law, someone has to define it. Then they have to explain what makes those guns worse than the others. They won't be able to.

I don't know what this next part means? Are you saying that you might want guns banned before an uprising of some kind but you're not sure? Please, elaborate. Which "side" will be "extremely unhinged" and why this is important?  

I am surprised every time because it's that horrible. I hope I never get used to the idea. It is an absolutely foreign concept to me to take innocent life with no regard. I have spent a lot of my time trying to help kids become healthy adults. I've done that with coaching wrestling, I've done it with coaching shooting sports. I try to do it everyday with my own kids. We have 3,100 kids, all with firearms at my states state trap shoot. 750,000 rounds fired over a week, all by underage shooters and no shootings, what are we doing wrong or more importantly what did we do right? My parents generation took their guns to school so they could hunt before and after. They didn't have school shootings. The logic of blaming guns for this problem is flawed. There were guns long before Columbine.   

[BerniePragle]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

An offensive weapon as opposed to a defensive one? I didn't realize guns could tell the difference. I don't think that makes much sense. They don't use the gun Art posted in the military.

Unfortunately, the answer is that there is no definition. Even with the last '94 AWB there were countless examples of guns far more lethal that didn't make the list. There isn't much to do with lethality that comes into play with the commonly used definitions. The best definition I have seen is "guns that look cool or scary". The only rhyme nor reason on what constitutes an assault rifle seems to be capacity and a semi-auto action. The first is less about guns and more about magazines, which is a whole separate issue. The second describes a great majority of the rifles used for, well pretty much everything. I get why people who are onboard with gun bans don't want to be bogged down in these details but if it is going to become law, someone has to define it. Then they have to explain what makes those guns worse than the others. They won't be able to.

I don't know what this next part means? Are you saying that you might want guns banned before an uprising of some kind but you're not sure? Please, elaborate. Which "side" will be "extremely unhinged" and why this is important?  

I am surprised every time because it's that horrible. I hope I never get used to the idea. It is an absolutely foreign concept to me to take innocent life with no regard. I have spent a lot of my time trying to help kids become healthy adults. I've done that with coaching wrestling, I've done it with coaching shooting sports. I try to do it everyday with my own kids. We have 3,100 kids, all with firearms at my states state trap shoot. 750,000 rounds fired over a week, all by underage shooters and no shootings, what are we doing wrong or more importantly what did we do right? My parents generation took their guns to school so they could hunt before and after. They didn't have school shootings. The logic of blaming guns for this problem is flawed. There were guns long before Columbine.   

Ah, you have a dog in the fight.  I wish you had added the qualifier "What would you like to see happen to prevent gun violence?", as long as nothing changes.  It would have saved some thinking and some typing on my part. 

Congratulations are in order though.  You do an excellent job of regurgitating the talking points you've absorbed... The gun doesn't shoot anybody, a person does.  We already have all the laws we need, we just need to enforce them.  My pappy carried his gun to school and didn't shoot anybody.  Did I miss anything?

Fool me once...

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

An offensive weapon as opposed to a defensive one? I didn't realize guns could tell the difference. I don't think that makes much sense. They don't use the gun Art posted in the military.

Unfortunately, the answer is that there is no definition. Even with the last '94 AWB there were countless examples of guns far more lethal that didn't make the list. There isn't much to do with lethality that comes into play with the commonly used definitions. The best definition I have seen is "guns that look cool or scary". The only rhyme nor reason on what constitutes an assault rifle seems to be capacity and a semi-auto action. The first is less about guns and more about magazines, which is a whole separate issue. The second describes a great majority of the rifles used for, well pretty much everything. I get why people who are onboard with gun bans don't want to be bogged down in these details but if it is going to become law, someone has to define it. Then they have to explain what makes those guns worse than the others. They won't be able to.

I don't know what this next part means? Are you saying that you might want guns banned before an uprising of some kind but you're not sure? Please, elaborate. Which "side" will be "extremely unhinged" and why this is important?  

I am surprised every time because it's that horrible. I hope I never get used to the idea. It is an absolutely foreign concept to me to take innocent life with no regard. I have spent a lot of my time trying to help kids become healthy adults. I've done that with coaching wrestling, I've done it with coaching shooting sports. I try to do it everyday with my own kids. We have 3,100 kids, all with firearms at my states state trap shoot. 750,000 rounds fired over a week, all by underage shooters and no shootings, what are we doing wrong or more importantly what did we do right? My parents generation took their guns to school so they could hunt before and after. They didn't have school shootings. The logic of blaming guns for this problem is flawed. There were guns long before Columbine.   

I am interested in what class of weapons you feel is appropriate for civilians to possess vs what the military has in its arsenal.  Does it stop at assault rifles?  Extend to fully automatic weapons?  Projectiles of any rate of fire and energy delivered?  Missiles? 

Edit: as for which side will be upset: I don't  believe school shootings will be tolerated forever.  At some point, one will be so hideous that even moderate republicans will be appalled and drastic gun control will happen.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Plasmodium

[El Luchador]

36 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Ah, you have a dog in the fight.  I wish you had added the qualifier "What would you like to see happen to prevent gun violence?", as long as nothing changes.  It would have saved some thinking and some typing on my part. 

Congratulations are in order though.  You do an excellent job of regurgitating the talking points you've absorbed... The gun doesn't shoot anybody, a person does.  We already have all the laws we need, we just need to enforce them.  My pappy carried his gun to school and didn't shoot anybody.  Did I miss anything?

Fool me once...

Some how your baseless rhetoric is  nobel and truthful.  For me gun issues are simple, the constitution protects my rights clearly and plainly.  Don't tread on my rights. I will not comply. Molon labe. I'm so sick of the constant assault on my liberty by leftist.  

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Some how your baseless rhetoric is  nobel and truthful.  For me gun issues are simple, the constitution protects my rights clearly and plainly.  Don't tread on my rights. I will not comply. Molon labe. I'm so sick of the constant assault on my liberty by leftist.  

What is a military class of weapons inappropriate for civilians?

[BerniePragle]

3 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Some how your baseless rhetoric is  nobel and truthful.  For me gun issues are simple, the constitution protects my rights clearly and plainly.  Don't tread on my rights. I will not comply. Molon labe. I'm so sick of the constant assault on my liberty by leftist.  

Oops, I forgot that one.  Another "conservative" genius regurgitating more blather.