He wasn't questioning your intelligence.
He was questioning your knowledge.
My knowledge turned out more accurate than his.
Fine, as I have made my point. I hope every one of the 120 killing tools are banned.Again, as I and Rion have asked, please turn the thread back to the op.
Fine, as I have made my point. I hope every one of the 120 killing tools are banned.
There is the problem, the list is not made public. That makes it extremely suspicious. I seriously doubt this will make it up to the President to sign, ever.I've followed several links, but the 120 guns to be banned aren't listed, and she uses the weapons furniture as a reason to ban it. It's ridiculous, and knee jerk at best.
I guess we won't find out the 120 types until after they sign the bill!That isn't going to happen. Even if by some miracle it makes it out of committee, and through the Senate and House, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to strike it down as unconstitutional. Her law is vague at best. I've followed several links, but the 120 guns to be banned aren't listed, and she uses the weapons furniture as a reason to ban it. It's ridiculous, and knee jerk at best.
There is the problem, the list is not made public. That makes it extremely suspicious. I seriously doubt this will make it up to the President to sign, ever.
I guess we won't find out the 120 types until after they sign the bill!
(meant to be a joke against Pelosi)
I can just see how this is going to play out. I think we can all agree that banning certain weapons, ammo, etc. gun registration of existing weapons and so on will do absolutely nothing to deter mass shootings. The gun-grabbers know this. So when the first mass shooting after all these new laws take effect happens, they will then say, "I guess we just didn't go far enough". They will never admit that the new laws didn't prevent the deaths of more innocents.
This is how liberal thinking works. If your plan fails, it's not because there was anything wrong with the plan it's that you just need more of it. It's like taxes. If raising rates reduces revenue, liberals will say, "we just need to raise them even more!"
Uh, neither does it specify which ones they can't keep and bear.ya. Just imagine all the other weapons still allowed to be legal. This is not restricting anybody's 2nd amendment considering the 2nd amendment never specifies which arms the people have a right to keep and bear.
"First step?" No. They took the first step decades ago.I almost wonder (a bit conspiritorial I know) but since they can't let a good crisis go to waste, is it possible that this is the first step to disarming the American people? All dictatorships start that way....hmmm it does bring one to thought...
This isn't just a condition of liberals, but goverment thinking in general. If you can't achieve the goal you wanted, more restrictive laws should be placed till you get the desired results.This is how liberal thinking works. If your plan fails, it's not because there was anything wrong with the plan it's that you just need more of it.
Apparently Pelosi thinks she can.Can anyone name 120 assault type firearms that people own out there?
I guess we won't find out the 120 types until after they sign the bill!
(meant to be a joke against Pelosi)
Yeah, so much for innocent until proved guilty huh?