"Ugh, nobody is talking about taking your guns."

[KLB]

Serious question: Do you have any examples of this?

I'll turn it around. Do you have any examples of them sitting by when one did? Obama hasn't actually tried to go that far.

 

[Expat]

I just heard oreilly say our choices are to have limits on guns or a free fire zone.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I just heard oreilly say our choices are to have limits on guns or a free fire zone.

Good thing Oreally isn't king.

 

[pudly]

I'll turn it around. Do you have any examples of them sitting by when one did? Obama hasn't actually tried to go that far.

Well, despite the fact that you wouldn't support your point, I'll support mine.

Obama has effectively unilaterally modified the Obamacare law at least 43 times.

Obama has unilaterally granted amnesty to "Dreamer" immigrants, ignoring current laws on immigration, including allowing those who are statutorily barred. There is a lawsuit (Texas vs. United States) with 26 states bringing the suit. Congressional Democrats (223 or 239) have signed an amicus brief supporting Obama's rewriting of current law and usurpation of legislative power.

 

[KLB]

Well, despite the fact that you wouldn't support your point, I'll support mine.

Obama has effectively unilaterally modified the Obamacare law at least 43 times.

Obama has unilaterally granted amnesty to "Dreamer" immigrants, ignoring current laws on immigration, including allowing those who are statutorily barred. There is a lawsuit (Texas vs. United States) with 26 states bringing the suit. Congressional Democrats (223 or 239) have signed an amicus brief supporting Obama's rewriting of current law and usurpation of legislative power.

First of all, there is no way to PROVE something won't happen. Second, neither of those examples is actually writing a new law.

Then look at your own post. 223 of 239 is not all.

The closest I could find was FDR, and even his hand picked Supreme Court shot him down.

 

[pudly]

neither of those examples is actually writing a new law. .

And just what do you think legislating from the Oval Office would look like? Certainly not like the normal legislative process.

 

[snorko]

Facts are on our side, it comes down to the propaganda war. A recent conversation gave me pause and concern.

I was talking to my father about Orlando. Keep in mind, my father is a classic college professor liberal. Typically his positions are well thought out and heartfelt. While trying to keep the conversation civil, he kept using the term "military grade" assault rifle. Now we all know this is the word de jour for the media and he would have picked it up from no where else but there. I asked him what that meant and if that was the same as "military grade aluminum" that Ford advertised in their F-150 trucks. Response was mumble, mumble.

He then said no one needed an AR-15 because, among other things, you can't hunt with it. Of course first I contradicted that statement, explaining to him it was a very popular hunting rifle, then mentioned the many other popular uses in shooting sports, collecting, personal defense, etc. What really shut him up in smoldering silence was the following:

Me: So your educated opinion, your well thought out conclusion, is that the AR-15 is not useful for hunting?

Dad: that's correct

Me: Dad, have you ever shot an AR-15?

Dad: No

Me: Have you ever held an AR-15?

Dad: of course not.

Me: Have you ever even seen an AR-15 in real life?

Dad: No (getting a little squirmy)

Me: Well, have you been hunting in the last 60 years?

Dad: No

Me: So your educated opinion is that this firearm which you have never shot, never held, never even seen is not useful for an activity you have never participated in. On what basis then do you draw that conclusion?

We decided to go inside without continuing the discussion.

 

[jamil]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to snorko again."

That's a good argument. It shows how effective is the straw monsters the public is bombarded with from liberal social media, old media, ectetera.

I had a similar discussion with my BIL that lasted for about 3 hours. He was saying essentially the same thing. "Assault Weapons" have no other purpose but to kill people. No one needs a "weapon of war" to hunt with.

Finally, I told him that the US has an estimated 320 million guns, most of which are rifles and shot guns. Some estimates have shown that there are anywhere from 2 to 10 million owners of what you call "assault rifles" in the US. According to the FBI, depending on the year, 250 to 400 murders per year are committed with rifles of ANY kind. For the sake of your argument lets assume estimates most favorable to your claim. That means in a given year, at least 1,999,600 out of 2 million people, found a use for their "assault weapons" that didn't involve murdering people. I went on to explain several of those uses. After which he finally said, I'm done. I'm tired of talking about it.

Facts are on our side, it comes down to the propaganda war. A recent conversation gave me pause and concern.

I was talking to my father about Orlando. Keep in mind, my father is a classic college professor liberal. Typically his positions are well thought out and heartfelt. While trying to keep the conversation civil, he kept using the term "military grade" assault rifle. Now we all know this is the word de jour for the media and he would have picked it up from no where else but there. I asked him what that meant and if that was the same as "military grade aluminum" that Ford advertised in their F-150 trucks. Response was mumble, mumble.

He then said no one needed an AR-15 because, among other things, you can't hunt with it. Of course first I contradicted that statement, explaining to him it was a very popular hunting rifle, then mentioned the many other popular uses in shooting sports, collecting, personal defense, etc. What really shut him up in smoldering silence was the following:

Me: So your educated opinion, your well thought out conclusion, is that the AR-15 is not useful for hunting?

Dad: that's correct

Me: Dad, have you ever shot an AR-15?

Dad: No

Me: Have you ever held an AR-15?

Dad: of course not.

Me: Have you ever even seen an AR-15 in real life?

Dad: No (getting a little squirmy)

Me: Well, have you been hunting in the last 60 years?

Dad: No

Me: So your educated opinion is that this firearm which you have never shot, never held, never even seen is not useful for an activity you have never participated in. On what basis then do you draw that conclusion?

We decided to go inside without continuing the discussion.

 

[actaeon277]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to snorko again."

That's a good argument. It shows how effective is the straw monsters the public is bombarded with from liberal social media, old media, ectetera.

I had a similar discussion with my BIL that lasted for about 3 hours. He was saying essentially the same thing. "Assault Weapons" have no other purpose but to kill people. No one needs a "weapon of war" to hunt with.

Finally, I told him that the US has an estimated 320 million guns, most of which are rifles and shot guns. Some estimates have shown that there are anywhere from 2 to 10 million owners of what you call "assault rifles" in the US. According to the FBI, depending on the year, 250 to 400 murders per year are committed with rifles of ANY kind. For the sake of your argument lets assume estimates most favorable to your claim. That means in a given year, at least 1,999,600 out of 2 million people, found a use for their "assault weapons" that didn't involve murdering people. I went on to explain several of those uses. After which he finally said, I'm done. I'm tired of talking about it.

Of course.

 

[OakRiver]

When I ask what people mean by weapons of war it usually stumps them because simply put every type or firearm back to black powder has been used in armed conflict. So even the muskets that people pretend are all that are covered by the 2A are weapons of war.

 

[Woobie]

First of all, there is no way to PROVE something won't happen. Second, neither of those examples is actually writing a new law.

Then look at your own post. 223 of 239 is not all.

The closest I could find was FDR, and even his hand picked Supreme Court shot him down.

Come now, 93% is pretty darn close. One would hope more than 7% of constitutionally elected, sworn public servants of a given party would controvert the illegal actions of even their own guy. But they won't.

 

[churchmouse]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to snorko again."

That's a good argument. It shows how effective is the straw monsters the public is bombarded with from liberal social media, old media, ectetera.

I had a similar discussion with my BIL that lasted for about 3 hours. He was saying essentially the same thing. "Assault Weapons" have no other purpose but to kill people. No one needs a "weapon of war" to hunt with.

Finally, I told him that the US has an estimated 320 million guns, most of which are rifles and shot guns. Some estimates have shown that there are anywhere from 2 to 10 million owners of what you call "assault rifles" in the US. According to the FBI, depending on the year, 250 to 400 murders per year are committed with rifles of ANY kind. For the sake of your argument lets assume estimates most favorable to your claim. That means in a given year, at least 1,999,600 out of 2 million people, found a use for their "assault weapons" that didn't involve murdering people. I went on to explain several of those uses. After which he finally said, I'm done. I'm tired of talking about it.

1st....I put +10 on Snorko. Well done.

2nd.....the agenda argument/talking points/sound bites will not hole up to the reality of the situation. It just will not.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Matt Damon Calls for Confiscation of Guns in U.S.

“You guys did it here in one fell swoop [in 1996] and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly,” Mr. Damon said during a promotional engagement in Sydney for the movie “Jason Bourne.”

 

[KG1]

I call for Matt Damon to go **** himself.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I call for Matt Damon to go **** himself.

I second this call.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I call for Matt Damon to go **** himself.

Only if he does so using a rusty steel fence post.

 

[poweraddict]

As a victim of Matt Damon movies I'm calling for every Matt Damon movie to be confiscated(owners shall be reimbursed by Matt Damon).

 

[KG1]

“You guys did it here in one fell swoop [in 1996] and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly,” Mr. Damon said during a promotional engagement in Sydney for the movie “Jason Bourne.”

How the hell can we talk about anything sensibly when you talk about things like confiscation by opining for an Australian type solution?

This is America. Go **** yourself again.

 

[Tombs]

Matt Damon Calls for Confiscation of Guns in U.S.

Like anyone cares what a man, who talks to plastic plants, thinks.

 

[OakRiver]

Matt Damon Calls for Confiscation of Guns in U.S.

I would love a sensible conversation with a gun control advocate. But given the appeals to emotions, manufactured truths, and outright lies I don't foresee that happening any time soon sadly.