The problem is that we have stupid guns in the United States

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Méo

Ok, so you recognize that this cartoon is misleading since the law abiding citizen doesn't carry an assault rifle here.

No, he has a shotgun from what I see. The law to be shoved up our keesters entails removal of assault rifles and large clips. The citizen is totally disarmed. There are just a few less types of weapons on the shelf to buy. In way, it is misleading in the respect that he is totally disarmed in the second picture which is not the case in reality.

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

No, he has a shotgun from what I see. The law to be shoved up our keesters entails removal of assault rifles and large clips. The citizen is totally disarmed. There are just a few less types of weapons on the shelf to buy. In way, it is misleading in the respect that he is totally disarmed in the second picture which is not the case in reality.

Not yet but once they establish a list of banned models it'll be easy peasy to add to it at their convenience. Robber sticks up a store with a M1911, add them to the list. A murder is committed with a .357 revolver, add them to the list. Someone shoots themselves with a .22 bolt action rifle, add them to the list. It's Gun rights elimination by degrees. That's why this crap needs to be nipped in the bud.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

Not yet but once they establish a list of banned models it'll be easy peasy to add to it at their convenience. Robber sticks up a store with a M1911, add them to the list. A murder is committed with a .357 revolver, add them to the list. Someone shoots themselves with a .22 bolt action rifle, add them to the list. It's Gun rights elimination by degrees. That's why this crap needs to be nipped in the bud.

Yes, one would believe this sets a precedence. I don't believe this is the underlying goal because the fight for it is not what the country needs at the moment. Throw out some legislation on assault rifles. Make a legacy. Retire to HI. For decades the "establishment" has tried to get rid of the guns. The guns are still here and will be for a long time.

It's not misleading.

It is totally misleading.

In my state it takes months to get a firearms license

Not outlawed then.

it can be denied by the local chief of police on a whim.

Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.

Other jurisdictions like New York will make you wait for years.

Not outlawed then.

If you are accused of a crime (not convicted just accused) your firearms can be confiscated.

Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
So it can be restrictions on travel, surrendering passport, curfew, drug testing, signing on at the police station, not associating with certain people and ...not having firearms.
Crazy stuff eh

The gun banners have on numerous occasions stated that their ultimate desire is to see all firearms banned from civilian ownership. I have no reason to doubt them. Their agenda has been quite clear for decades.

Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it.
He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.
So more bull

[Sailor Steve]

I just had a remarkable thought. Tribesman has shown himself to be a master at countering people, at putting people down, and at mocking people. The remarkable thought, though, is this: What exactly is Tribesman's stance on the subject? I can't recall ever seeing him actually express an opinion on this question. He seems to live for making fun of other people, but know one I know could say what he really thinks on the subject, because he's never said so himself.

So, do you actually have any thoughts on anything at all, or is your entire reason for existing to mock others?

[AVGWarhawk]

Tribesman never commits to a stance on any subject.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Tribesman never commits to a stance on any subject.

All the stances are highly conditional, that is why terms and conditions always apply.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

All the stances are highly conditional, that is why terms and conditions always apply.

Teflon comes to mind.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Tribesman has shown himself to be a master at countering people, at putting people down, and at mocking people.

For the first part, I disagree. Tribesman presents no evidence or data to the contrary of any argument, which is why he has to rely on vague quoting and poor grammar to obscure the content. As for the second and third parts, absolutely. His posts are all disdain and vitriol.

The remarkable thought, though, is this: What exactly is Tribesman's stance on the subject? I can't recall ever seeing him actually express an opinion on this question. He seems to live for making fun of other people, but know one I know could say what he really thinks on the subject, because he's never said so himself.

So, do you actually have any thoughts on anything at all, or is your entire reason for existing to mock others?

I would also like to see this. You and I have both called him out on this before, and have gotten nowhere. I suspect that all he really wants is for us to be talking to and about him. He craves that sort of attention, not unlike yubba, who he, with no small amount of irony, rails against.

[Armistead]

"According to TV station WABC, the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, which bans magazines that carry more than seven rounds, does not provide an exemption for law enforcement officers, who typically carry handguns with a 15-round capacity"

Police trying to have this law changed.....Just goes to show when they start passing dumb laws how they don't pay attention.

What exactly is Tribesman's stance on the subject? I can't recall ever seeing him actually express an opinion on this question.

Try remembering.

For the first part, I disagree.

Disagree all you like, though you might be hard pushed to explain how bringing up simple bail conditions and conditions of release doesn't counter Augusts moan about some individual alledged criminals having their right to guns temporarily removed.
Then again recently you did have difficulty in understanding how all I had to do to show that one set of numbers didn't display the manipulation of another set of numbers was point out that they were in fact two different sets of numbers.
See how easy it is to present data that is contrary to the arguement.

Would you like the USC on bail conditions or would you like a state level breakdown?
How about some backround on further amendments because US citizens moaning to their government to impose tighter bail conditions because alledged criminals were re offending while on bail?

Or Perhaps would you like to see again that 2012 is not 2011?

not unlike yubba, who he, with no small amount of irony, rails against.

I rail against yubba for his conspiracy theories and extreme yet naive political partisanship.