You respond to your own wild imagination or tendency to twist other peoples' words. I did not say that. If you don't know that, you're not fit to argue anything. Wait....
I'm not twisting your words. I'm just restating them more honestly. If I'm wrong, then please give us a list of gun restrictions that you'd support, even though they wouldn't prevent all shootings.
Post your real "reasonable gun policy" then. It has to be possible to be enacted into law by a legislative body - they don't enact newspaper articles or message board posts . Give us the law you'd support to stop these shootings. Stop attacking people and put your policy on here. I've requested that several times. Not one piece of legislation - eve in outline form - has been put forward from the left. Makes one wonder if you lefties don't want more and more of these shooting to use for your electoral political purposes. You sure as hell aren't advocating anything that would help fix the problem.
It would help if you’d just admit that you pasted talking points you received in a chain email this morning. Talking points that you’ll defend as facts in some arguments and make no claim to in others. You’re a garbage politician operative that has no business tainting minds.
I don’t know why I’m wasting my time with you but at a high level my policy would be:
Haha! Good call. He did just copy and paste from one of several online gun communities.
The only one I've advocated which is not on the books is this. You're gonna soil yourself. Everyone in America who is taking or has taken drugs prescribed by a medical professional or mental health professional AND everyone in America who has been diagnosed by such professional shall be reported, including all known contact information to the Department of Homeland Security and such contact information together with the written diagnosis and treatment provided shall be placed in the same data bases now used to run background checks for gun purchases. If they are on the data base, they cannot purchase and have 30 days to lodge an appeal to DHS and/or to request a hearing within 180 days of the purchase denial to request a change of status and removal from the data base for good cause shown to an appellate body within DHS. Since the right denied is Constitutional, surely there would need to be judicial review of these determinations.
Yes, Sir I sure did. It was posted on Facebook. Have you made up some wild rule about that now?
It never entered in my mind that he came up with those himself. clear as day talking points and ones he can easily back away from or say that you’re misunderstanding. It’s a hack job.
Actually, much of it probably isn't true. As Ranger has already pointed out, for example, Maryland's "assault weapon" ban may have prevented deaths, because the killer had a less deadly weapon.
Oh yes, groups on The Facebook are a tremendous source for reliable info! Just today I saw that Obama and Trump are lizard people!
Yeah, I feel like an idiot. I guess that's normal when I stoop to actually engaging him, though. I've certainly never left a conversation with Ladoga smarter than I was when I started.
In some places and in some circumstances, that is the case. I'll join you in supporting an amendment to remove that limitation from the 1st Amendment thus negating all such limitations. Maybe we could do that at an Article V Convention. OK?
You were thus constrained long before you knew of my existence.
I have enough handles and passwords to last a while.
Efficacy is no excuse for abridgment of a Constitutional Right. Liberals think its ok if it helps their agenda or makes them feel good, but the relative utility of a law doesn't not make it meet Constitutional muster. But you know all that or you should.
LOL. Actually, the utility of a law does have a bearing on it's Constitutionality, but I doubt you know that.
You. Got. It. From. Facebook.
What a surprise that I haven't seen it anywhere. I guess that means my social media and group of friends are of a different mind than yours and Lagoda. Shocking, I know.
Note my challenge was that your proposal has to be capable of being enacted. Confiscating (making the semi-automatic rifles/carbine illegal) rifles is impossible and would certainly lead to a shooting war with the government on one side - the confiscation side - and that could NEVER pass. Prohibiting sales of those weapons is not as terrible and the first idea but terrible enough to be impossible to enact. There is no market value to contraband. Thats another bad idea that couldn't pass Congress. Amnesty to delay compliance with a terrible law - even worse idea? No chance to be enacted. THEN after enacting those horribles, you want law enforcement to arrest and imprison those who, in good faith, believe their right to keep and bear arms is what the SCOTUS says it is - an individual right that they can enforce. Every one of those ideas is the ranting of a wacko - surely those aren't your original thoughts. I disagree with most of what you post, but never thought you wacko. Those are target and hunting rifles you'd outlaw, confiscate and prosecute possession of. Its a shame. Rancher in Wyoming (or name lots of other places) has predators after his cattle/sheep/chickens. He could own the rifle used to shoot the predators?
Don't let the pistol fool you. The largest mass shooting in American history was done by one person with two handguns at Virginia Tech.
I hate to ask, was Va Tech larger than Vegas?
You’re full of nonsense. If a rancher needs a 30rnd magazine of 0.223 to kill chicken predators he’s not qualified to be a rancher. I said levers and bolts are fine as are .22 LR-firing rounds.
