Anti American left

This boomer is afraid of guns and claims that she has a right to live in an area without having to be afraid of guns. She is opposed to constitutional carry. How can you reason or discuss things with people who do not use reason, facts, or logic to arrive at decisions, but instead use emotion, fallacies, and imagination?

This moron thinks that the killers in the recent mass shootings were using machine guns, so this means that “Congress needs to pass a law to make it unlawful to manufacture, own, or borrow, or use, any automatic rifle capable of firing multiple rounds of bullets simultaneously.”

But it’s no wonder that people are confused, when the press is deliberately trying to confuse the issue by claiming that you can order “the same gun used by the Uvalde shooter” on the Internet “no questions asked” while misleading readers on the paperwork and background checks that are carried out at your local dealer.

Even the government gets in on it, as Nina Jankowicz says the ‘Ministry Of Truth’ would have prevented the Uvalde shooting.

While the attack on semiautos is ramping up, it’s easy to forget about the ongoing efforts to make homemade firearms illegal.

• A felon in Florida reached a plea deal for making firearms and got 87 months (7 years, 3 months) in Federal prison. So he was caught and went to jail for most of a decade. Why do we need another law?
• This felon was caught with a ‘ghost gun’ as well as a factory made handgun. He is going to jail. The laws already in place worked.
• This guy was 3D printing lowers, handguns, and Glock switches at his home. It’s almost like criminals ignore the law. What he was doing was already illegal, and I don’t see how making it even more illegal would change anything.
• This 14 year old had a ‘ghost gun’ with a Glock switch installed, making it a machine gun. So it was already for a 14 year old to own a handgun, illegal to possess a machine gun, and illegal to manufacture a machine gun. How would one more law have changed anything?

This is why I no longer argue about gun control. The only answer you get from me is: NO!

Any further debate is useless and is a waste of time.

President Biden said that the Second Amendment is not absolute before going on to explain that you couldn’t own a cannon when the Bill of Rights was ratified. This remark is identical to one he made back in February that I have already debunked.

The Amendment didn’t say that, for two reasons: First, the Amendments to the Constitution don’t say that people can do anything. The Amendments say that the GOVERNMENT can’t do things. The government can’t infringe on the right keep to bear arms, is what it says. Second, people DID own cannons. Privately organized and funded artillery companies in the colonies date all the way back to the 1630s. A century later, in the 1740s, there are records of Benjamin Franklin helping organize artillery companies while stressing that they were made completely of volunteers and armed at their own expense.

One of the driving forces behind the first major battles of the Revolutionary was because the British soldiers were coming to confiscate privately-owned arms – including cannons and mortars – such as ones that were being held by veterans of the French and Indian War as war trophies.

In fact, there were people who owned entire warships. See my post on this from 2013.

During the course of the Revolution, approximately 1,700 letters of Marque were issued to privateers. In the War of 1812, President James Madison issued more than 500 letters of Marque to privateers. These letters of marque created what was, essentially, legal piracy, and it was sanctioned by the government and even deemed necessary. So how did these privateers arm their vessels? With cannons that they purchased as individuals.

Our colonial navy had approximately 1,200 cannons on board less than 65 ships. The privateers, on the other hand, had almost 15,000 cannons – all privately owned.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, which is, by far, the most restrictive piece of Federal legislation related to the ownership of arms, says nothing about cannons. It wasn’t until 1968 that things we regard as modern artillery were regulated further when ‘destructive devices’ were added to the law.

But muzzleloading cannons, like the ones used during the Revolutionary War remain conspicuously absent in any legislation. You could buy a cannon as an individual in the Revolution era, and you can still buy one today as an individual.

Elon recently continued his shift to the right by claiming to support the 2A. He then showed that his journey isn’t complete when he went on to say that he supports Universal Background Checks and thinks “assault weapons” should be restricted to range owners and “people who live in gang areas.”

I am not going to be to hard on him. In this case, it is obvious that he isn’t a dogmatic liberal who supports his cause over facts and logic. It looks to me like he is a new convert away from leftist dogma, and it takes some time to see that everything you have believed in the past is wrong because the information you relied upon to come to those beliefs was bullshit. The confusion over assault weapons was a deliberate misinformation campaign.

The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Josh Sugarmann, 1988

He will come to realize the truth. This is one of those times when attacking him for his mistaken belief would be counterproductive. Someone needs to educate him without attacking him.

Daniel Defense to be sued. Notice how they always claim that no other industry gets protection from lawsuits, but Ford never gets sued when a drunk driver kills a kid in an accident?