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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:"Look how powerful I am with my weapon that can pulverize people! Maybe we should let everyone own nukes too! Just like Jesus would want!"

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.

Anonymous wrote:Guns are a menace to society and no matter what NRA ChatBot says, no civilized society would shrug their shoulders as the US has after so many school slaughters. No decent human makes excuses for not coming up with sensible compromises on the outdated right to own killing machines and public health. Guns are a public health issue and the rest of us have the right to live peacefully free from violence. Anyone defending this insanity is not sane enough to own a gun - or they are a Russian chat bot. We see you.

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.

Anonymous wrote:With every attempt to change minds, your chatbot obsession with vocabulary is only proving that people who love guns are unfit to own them. You’ve ignored every good argument for gun control, burying substantive comments in drivel. You sound absolutely off your rocker and not half as smart as you think you are.

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.

Actually, you left out lever-action, bolt-action, and possibly revolving cylinder.

NP nobody cares.

We need rational gun control to stop the swiss cheese effect of red states making it easy for criminals to straw purchase guns in bulk and traffic them all over our country.

I comforted a friend who attended the funeral of a kid who died at Sandy Hook.

Go eff yourselves with your macho attempt to one up people on specific mechanics of guns. The gun culture and worship of something which has a sole purpose of injury or death is odd, unchristian (if you think you are a Christian), and sad.

The right to life is a fundamental Christian (indeed universal) moral principle.

The right to the efficacious means of self-defense is a concomitant to that fundamental right.

Firearms have significant utility apart from self-defense. They play a role in multiple Olympic and other sports.

Where is the call to lock up criminal psychopaths? Where is the action on that?