Kamala Harris owns a gun. Are you surprised or mad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Name calling is so puerile, and even worse when driven by fundamental ignorance. The pictured firearm is most certainly and unequivocally a semiauto 12 gauge shotgun, most likely loaded with no. 8 birdshot if in fact he was using it for a shooting sport. Such shotguns are ubiquitous. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that any sort of “permit” would be required for the purchase of such a shotgun.

Why is this? It is a gun, is it not? How can there not be a permit required to purchase or own it?

If this is true - IF - then I find that very troubling indeed, and would say that it prima facia evidence that we are in desperate need of reasonable, common sense gun safety laws, if a permit or license is not required to own something like that.

Further, why would one possibly need 8 birdshots? If you cannot hit your target with one shot, then you shouldn't be in the woods hunting to begin with. No one needs 8 shots to kill a duck.

But, isn’t this the same type of gun Tim carried when he was in Afghanistan?

It does NOT look like the kind of gun I have ever seen army people carrying. That's why we can be sure it's not a semiautomatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

Once again, different poster, but nobody cares.

Make gun laws consistent across states at a minimum so that guns are not so easily straw purchased, for starters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

Once again, different poster, but nobody cares.

Make gun laws consistent across states at a minimum so that guns are not so easily straw purchased, for starters.

Or, better yet - just ban them entirely, and then such half-measures as you propose wouldn’t be needed at all.

Simplify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Jack Sparrow has an assault weapon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

Once again, different poster, but nobody cares.

Make gun laws consistent across states at a minimum so that guns are not so easily straw purchased, for starters.

Or, better yet - just ban them entirely, and then such half-measures as you propose wouldn’t be needed at all.

Simplify.

Sounds good to me. Or we could just support legislation like other first world countries like the Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Norway and the like with sensible gun control measures:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons#chapter-title-0-3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

Once again, different poster, but nobody cares.

Make gun laws consistent across states at a minimum so that guns are not so easily straw purchased, for starters.

Or, better yet - just ban them entirely, and then such half-measures as you propose wouldn’t be needed at all.

Simplify.

Sounds good to me. Or we could just support legislation like other first world countries like the Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Norway and the like with sensible gun control measures:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons#chapter-title-0-3

The United States should be a leader, not a follower. Those other countries still allow gun possession to some degree, and have the statistics of guns homicides to prove it. Yes, they have fewer gun killings than we do - but they STILL have gun killings. Following their examples will lead only to reduced gun killings - not zero gun killings. Better we should follow the lead of other first world industrialized nations - China among them - which have totally banned guns from civilian hands in most cases. Tim Walz has a scholarly relationship with China, and would be extremely useful in crafting and implementing such a measure here.

The second amendment is obviously an impediment as the USSC has currently found, but with the addition of judges to the court to correct the hard-right slant it currently has, a new interpretation of the second amendment can quickly be ruled on, allowing for effective, common sense gun safety laws to be put in place, according to the text of the amendment itself - .... a well-regulated militia... - in other words - the military. The military can bear all the arms it once, with constitutional approval.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Jack Sparrow has an assault weapon?

Can it kill you?

Yes?

I believe there's your answer then, idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white male slave owner and completely irrelevant to modern times.

And yes, all those things you listed are potential weapons as well. And we should examine doing away with them or making them less dangerous, AFTER we've gotten all the guns. No argument from me at all. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised nor mad.

Does she stockpile guns? Did she purchase them legally? Did she have proper training? Does she store them responsibly? Does she have crazy machine gun like weapons that no civilian ever needs?

The details matter. She also supports reasonable, responsible gun legislation, so I'm not the least bit bothered as a non-gun owner.

“Stockpile.” WTF does that mean? More than one? More than three? How many kinds?

“Machine gun like weapons.” There is no such thing. A firearm is a machine gun or it is not.

“Civilian.” Kamala Harris is a civilian. The police are civilians.

“Needs.” A good life is defined by fulfilling wants, not just needs. Who are you to decide what others need?

Kindergartners do a whole unit of differentiating wants and needs. Maybe stop by your nearest elementary school and ask for some info. Maybe I need to point out that you should be unarmed.

A gun that is more than is required for hunting or protection is certainly a want not a need. As a society, we do get to decide that some wants do not get to be fulfilled. That’s usually how laws work. The opinions of the majority of Americans regarding whether anyone who wants an assault rifle should get one is fairly clear. Polls consistently show that most people support some degree of limitation. This might be stricter permit laws or not being able to purchase certain ammunition. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the wishes of the majority law due to weak lawmakers dependent on NRA dollars. This isn’t something to be proud of. This is a sign that our government is broken.

I grew up in a house with lots of guns. I learned to shoot when I was 12. I think all my relatives had (locked) display cases of old guns. My uncle made guns. All of these relatives support stricter gun laws. Most people who own guns are not rabid gun freaks. Those are just the people like this pp with the loudest voices saying the weirdest things.

What is sufficent for protection?

The most capable and reliable firearm you can afford.

Normal people understand that this is ridiculous. What if I can afford a militia of trained snipers with AK-47s and SMAWs. And I really want a militia!! And this is Amurica, and it’s my right to have my militia!

The limit of what is legal should not be determined by what someone wants or what they can afford. Anyone with reasonable ethical foundations knows this. Again, this is why we should have gun laws so people with common sense (not you) can make decisions for people who have none (you).

Your parents should be ashamed for not loving you enough to teach you basic ethics.

I didn't ask about ethics, I asked about what is sufficent for protection. Your response has more to do with a militia, and since militias are allowed under both state and federal constitutions, and SCOTUS has decried that some guns can be banned specifically because they aren't useful for a militia (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)), which arguably runs contrary to your point, coupled with the fact that in the USA you can own military aircraft, tanks, and artillary with very few restrictions, and have historically been able to do so (as in privateers, privately owned cannon etc)

How many rounds is sufficent to carry for defense? 1? 6? 10? 30? 5000? You certainly can make arguments for each. Is a rifle better for defensive purposes than a pistol? How about a shotgun? It entirely depends on the circumstances. Each type of firearm is better for certain scenarios.

See, that’s the problem, normal people ARE talking about ethics. But thanks for being upfront about being amoral, I guess.

Moral principles !== what is sufficent for protection.

If you are going to ban specific features, then you need a technical discussion, or legal interpretation of proposed language to implement a restriction.

The only weapon suitable for protection against tyranny in modern times is a nuclear weapon.

Tell Ukraine that.

Answer this question: under 2a, should regular citizens be able to own weapons of a nuclear magnitude? Yes or no?

A AR16 is just a deadly as a nuclear bomb to the kindergartner being shot by it. The distinction is pointless to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white male slave owner and completely irrelevant to modern times.

And yes, all those things you listed are potential weapons as well. And we should examine doing away with them or making them less dangerous, AFTER we've gotten all the guns. No argument from me at all. None.

Also if we are going to defer to the reverence of Jefferson, let's also be honest that he thought we should redo the constitution if it didn't suit the will and needs of the people given that times change.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white male slave owner and completely irrelevant to modern times.

And yes, all those things you listed are potential weapons as well. And we should examine doing away with them or making them less dangerous, AFTER we've gotten all the guns. No argument from me at all. None.

Also if we are going to defer to the reverence of Jefferson, let's also be honest that he thought we should redo the constitution if it didn't suit the will and needs of the people given that times change.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

Also Thomas Jefferson: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right"

Basically the PP is violating the beliefs of Jefferson because they believe the constitution of our ancestors should be forced on us in modern times and never changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white male slave owner and completely irrelevant to modern times.

And yes, all those things you listed are potential weapons as well. And we should examine doing away with them or making them less dangerous, AFTER we've gotten all the guns. No argument from me at all. None.

Also if we are going to defer to the reverence of Jefferson, let's also be honest that he thought we should redo the constitution if it didn't suit the will and needs of the people given that times change.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

Also Thomas Jefferson: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right"

Basically the PP is violating the beliefs of Jefferson because they believe the constitution of our ancestors should be forced on us in modern times and never changed.

Fine start the constitutional process of repealing the 2nd amendment.

[Anonymous]

Your right to own a musket shall not be infringed. Or we can repeal it all together. No civilized society lives like this.