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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][img] <a href="https://ibb.co/r2xhf6T"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/nM7y8cZ/IMG-4043.jpg" alt="IMG-4043" border="0"></a>[/img]

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

[/quote]

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

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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[/quote]

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? 
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

Simplify. [/quote]

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[/quote]

The United States should be a leader, [i]not[/i] 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[i] reduced [/i]gun killings - not[i] zero gun killing[/i]s. 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 - .... [i]a well-regulated militia.[/i].. - in other words - the military. The military can bear all the arms it once, with constitutional approval. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics