How so?
General Joe Biden: BAN rifles
- Thread starter Toelocku
- Start date
Depends on the user
goddamn i gotta get one of them.You must have meant "used to TAKE the rights of minorities."
My penis will be YUUUUUUGGGE.
biggify your weiner
T
The Big Guy
Guest
To take back our walmarts
Friendly reminder, banning "assault weapons" is fake-and-gay and most violence is committed by handguns...
DOJ Study Fails to Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked
DOJ Study Fails to Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked
this is why it kills me to hear Crazy Uncle Joe and the Nanny-Staters claiming that the AWB was 'inconclusive'.
If you want to claim that 'crime was down during the AWB, but it can't be directly linked to the AWB' then you're being intellectually dishonest.
You're a liar. You know the truth of the the facts, and you're willfully ignorant of the rational interpretation of the data.
Overall crime was on a downward trend for 2 decades before the AWB. That trend continued at the same rate (statistically) before the implementation and after the expiration of the AWB. What DID happen during the AWB was a bunch of people being arrested and deprived of property. That's a real cost that society bore for absolutely no demonstrable change in the already insignificant count of AW-crimes or in the overall rates of firearm and/or non-firearm violent crime.
Correlation is not causation, but lack of correlation is a strong indicator of lack of causality.
The term "assault weapon", as it stands, is a media made-up term with no fixed definition that gets applied to whatever the current considered evil is at the moment. That the term is even being used at all is a sign that the person is an uneducated troll looking to stir up shit.
G'head, ask him to define "assault weapon". He'll claim some nonsense about "any military-style weapon", which is, again, another spoon-fed talking point he's been trained to parrot back. Again, a term with no fixed definition.
G'head. Ask him.
G'head, ask him to define "assault weapon". He'll claim some nonsense about "any military-style weapon", which is, again, another spoon-fed talking point he's been trained to parrot back. Again, a term with no fixed definition.
G'head. Ask him.
banning anything will only make the black market thrive.
it doesn't even mean it'll go away for good because it'll just be sold back illegally.
banning will give only the gang members and criminal organizations more power, less power to the people.
so
it doesn't even mean it'll go away for good because it'll just be sold back illegally.
banning will give only the gang members and criminal organizations more power, less power to the people.
so
I've noticed they've actually upped the ante and are now calling them "weapons of war"
Last edited:
And what if gun tards' small penises are exposed to the world? How would they mass kill some random people?
M
member 3289
Guest
Wrong. When we had a ban in place, there was no a black market.banning anything will only make the black market thrive.
it doesn't even mean it'll go away for good because it'll just be sold back illegally.
banning will give only the gang members and criminal organizations more power, less power to the people.
so
I wonder where one can pick up assault weapons
How do you know? Because MSM didnt tell you there was a black market?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Weapon (made up term mostly on looks). Not rifle (automatic fire by definition and already essentially illegal for any more being released).
It's probably the best example of feel gun measure that will only prevent unifying on actual measures that you could cross the aisle on to get done now. It won't help things and it will be divisive to create lack of action.
What do you mean by "assault rifle"?
Here we go with the pedantic nature of one trying to justify something that, on its lowest level, will kill you......particularly if you are minding your own business, trying to just enjoy life and are the victim of someone who just got done watching grand theft auto, vice city
Nobody ever accused you of minding your own business.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
You're making an argument for banning all guns. If that's the case that's fine. Some people think that.
But if you're not making that case then being specific about what you are banning matters. It's not pedantic. That's just a cop out for people who are calling for things but they don't understand And then don't want to hear the response on why that particular focus is probably misguided.
Assault weapons in assault rifles are different things.
we already have legislation on one of those and we've had legislation on both of them in the past.
since they're different things it matters what you're talking about and what's your goals are.
If I institute legislation about your business for instance, you probably be real interested in making sure that legislation actually said what it means and does what it means.
You understand finance. You would not want to layman wrongly legislating your job causing the wrong outcomes and then saying you're being pedantic when you try to explain to them that they are talking about the wrong thing.
I’m gonna read this in a few minutes and you’ll be sorry
I think we are all sorry he took the time to dignify your statement as intellectual and or serious.
I’m the sorriest m8, innit
Fucking editing my posts
Innit splintiotomy
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I've edited nothing
You want a pink name? Can be arranged