https://summit.news/2020/11/02/michigan-gun-stores-cleaned-out-over-fears-about-election-unrest/

Meanwhile, in Hawaii, you must wait months.....................Lucky we do not have antifarts running around.

Good, the more gun owners we have the less chance they can ban. 

Good, the more gun owners we have the less chance they can ban.

Who told you that?

Why are the anti-gun organizations pushing so hard to ban the AR-15 and all other "assault weapon" rifles?

Answer:  Because the AR-15 is the most widely owned sporting rifle in the US.  Ban assault weapons, and you ban a larger percentage of long guns in private hands than you would any other rifle.

This, even though rifles, and in particular AR-15s/Assault Weapons, account for an insignificant proportion of violent crimes in the nation.

So, your theory, feeling, belief, "fact" holds no water.  Even though the courts have identified that "weapons in common use" helps classify it as protected under 2A, large numbers also make them a larger target for bans.

Since pistols represent the highest proportion of firearms used criminally, why aren't they also targeted for bans?

Answer:  They were -- when semi-autos first became popular.  The lie was "Only gang members, drug dealers and other criminals carry semi-autos with 10-15 round mags."  That became untrue as more and more private buyers opted for semi -auto pistols for home defense.  They really lost the argument when law enforcement agencies started issuing them.

Basically, they tried and lost the semi-auto pistol ban.  Now they focus on scary "weapons of war" using fear and ignorance to have their agenda passed.

Who told you that?

Why are the anti-gun organizations pushing so hard to ban the AR-15 and all other "assault weapon" rifles?

Answer:  Because the AR-15 is the most widely owned sporting rifle in the US.  Ban assault weapons, and you ban a larger percentage of long guns in private hands than you would any other rifle.

This, even though rifles, and in particular AR-15s/Assault Weapons, account for an insignificant proportion of violent crimes in the nation.

So, your theory, feeling, belief, "fact" holds no water.  Even though the courts have identified that "weapons in common use" helps classify it as protected under 2A, large numbers also make them a larger target for bans.

People tend to protect things they have.  If half of America owns guns.  Then one can argue only half of America really cares about guns and if they do bans only half will care strongly.  If 75% of America owns guns.  Than a majority of America will be against losing their own shit.

People tend to protect things they have.  If half of America owns guns.  Then one can argue only half of America really cares about guns and if they do bans only half will care strongly.  If 75% of America owns guns.  Than a majority of America will be against losing their own shit.

Since when is a Constitutionally protected individual right predicated on "a majority cares about it?"  Civil rights legislation would have never passed if the minority hadn't cared more than the majority.

Since when is a Constitutionally protected individual right predicated on "a majority cares about it?"  Civil rights legislation would have never passed if the minority hadn't cared more than the majority.

Just because something is lawful and in the Constitution doesn't mean everyone supports it.  They can change the Constitution.   More supporters you have the better.... if democrats suddenly start liking guns that would be an amazing thing.  Unless all you care about it is the political support it brings Republicans.   Then are you really a gun supporter?

Just because something is lawful and in the Constitution doesn't mean everyone supports it.  They can change the Constitution.   More supporters you have the better.... if democrats suddenly start liking guns that would be an amazing thing.  Unless all you care about it is the political support it brings Republicans.   Then are you really a gun supporter?

You referring to voters, or the politicians?

You referring to voters, or the politicians?

Voters would come first than politicians would follow.

Voters would come first than politicians would follow.

you keep on telling yourself that...

you keep on telling yourself that...

Zactly...  he’s once again completely missing vital points that he’s TRYING to argue.