A Red Flag Law On Steriods, CA Govenor Signed Today

Let see your studies that support the statements above lol

 

Look it up yourself, it's not my job to educate you, your information, which is GCA based has been debunked long ago.

 

And the women who are assaulted or killed by their female partner?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships

 

A right wing trump support being able to read well enough to do research sorry I should had known better

Fox words bits is the best anyone can expect from them.

Hell even Trump is not a reader so why should his supporters be any better.

 

If you are a tool of the left you simply continue to repeat the debunked mantras of the GCAs and continue to demand evidence to the contrary, much of which has been presented time and again in this forum, until people get tire of waiting time at which time you declare victory. In the meantime, those that continue the mantras of the GCA dogma and myths are simply dismissed and ignored.
But, in your string of posts linking gun owners to Trump you underscore the demonization of guns, gun owners, Trump and Trump supporters underscores that many here see the gun control issue as one of the Left attempting to leverage the issue for political capital to demonize the Left’s Political opposition because the equate, or are trying to equate gun ownership to conservative voters. I am ok with that; it’s a strategy that failed in 2016 and Beto and crew wants to try it again...Bravo.

 

Except for the fact that there is no evidence to actually prove such a claim. All that is had is nothing more than random surveys that cannot be verified, which reveal only what number of individuals are willing to answer such a question in a random polling by complete strangers.

Except for the confirmed fact that such has not actually been proven. Even the work of Arthur Kellermann did not state such to be the case, as he admitted engaging in illegal activity, such as dealing in illicit narcotic substances and domestic violence, were more likely to lead to violence and murder than the presence of a firearm.

Even if the above claim on the part of yourself were factually correct, ultimately the question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference would such actually make? The world is a dangerous place, and death is never more than five minutes away for any random individual at any given time. Firearms are supposed to be dangerous because they are lethal weapons. If they were not dangerous, there would be no point in owning them.

That matter aside, there is still the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, has been presented on the part of yourself to show that there is a connection between firearms ownership and masculinity.

If such simply cannot be done, then admit to such. Admit that there is no connection between the two and recant the original statement made on the part of yourself.

 

Sadly for the progressive left it is a strategy that will cement in place a victory for Trump, the average American doesn't give a rats fanny about guns or gun control, they are concerned about their wallet first and foremost. The Democrats took the House by promising to solve the Obamacare problem, but by opposing the elimination of it and failing to solve the extreme cost of that program to the average American, who's wallet still being emptied out by it, they failed and that will not be forgiven or forgotten by the undecided, who put them in power of the House.

Furthermore their latching on impeachment and gun control, is so far away from what normal Americans care about, they are becoming a isolated party supported only by the fringes of their core base.

They are totally burning themselves out of any win in 2020.

And then along comes the witch, Hillary to really take them down the tubes..

 

Facts are not your friend

 

Once again, such does not do anything to even attempt to demonstrate a supposed link between firearms ownership and masculinity. Thus once again demonstrating the claim made on the part of yourself is factually incorrect.

If evidence of such a link did exist, it would have been presented on the part of yourself by now. Since such has not been done, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that such a link does not exist, and the claim on the part of yourself was nothing more than one of intellectual dishonesty.

No amount of trying to change the subject in this discussion is going to work. No matter what irrelevant point is brought up on the part of yourself to derail the discussion, it will always be brought back to the factually deficient claim on the part of yourself about firearms ownership being related to masculinity.

 

Change the subject to all the dead women and even children that result compare to any other western nation due to having large numbers of guns in households?

I happy to see that what amount to honor killings by firearms have nothing to do with the tie in between firearms and manhood views.

 

I see, so guns are the cause? Or, is it just white Trump supporters...you now have confused me.

I didn’t know honor killings were such an issue in the US.
What was used for honor killings prior to guns?

 

Is it being stated on the part of yourself, that these murders would simply have not been committed if firearms were simply not available, or otherwise did not exist? Or is it being stated that people do not murder if firearms are not part of the equation? Be specific.

What does masculinity have to do with murder?

 

do you consider the machine gun ban unconstitutional, do you want to see more machine guns in the hands of bad guys

 

Machine guns are not banned in the U.S.

 

Ultimately what is serving to prevent such from occurring? There is an absolute prohibition on substances such as cocaine and heroin, yet those prohibitions are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the illicit trade and sale of such.

So if the absolute prohibition on one prohibited substance is not working, why is another prohibition on a difference substance supposedly working? Explain such.

 

so making ar-15's with the same rules you would support and not call it a ban?

 

There is no reasonable reason to single out AR-15 for such regulation, as they are merely semi-automatic rifles built with more plastic and aluminum than the traditional wood stocked semi-auto rifles, many of which are considerably more powerful than the AR-15 base platform.

 

other then the number of mass shootings they are used in, yet you support bump stocks that make them basically like a machine gun

we are not talking about a ban, just making them harder to buy like machine guns

 

Actually if you studied mass shootings you might understand AR-15's are at the bottom of the list, handguns are by far the most common firearm used in mass shootings.

Factually incorrect, I have never made such a statement.

Why, there is no logical reason to do such.

Maybe get a clue of the subject before simply regurgitating the GCA's worn out lies.

 

Similar countries with similar populations to the US have a murder rate a fraction of our with specials notes of family violence.

The only major difference is our gun culture so yes without that the death rates for our women and children would likely be less.

 

Bullcrap, there are no countries that are similar to the U.S., our culture is very unique and not comparable to other countries, we have rights that citizens of other counties risk their lives to get here and become a legal part of what our country affords them, to have the same rights we already have.

 

The most commonly utilized firearms in all mass shootings are handguns, not any other types of firearms. And the united state supreme court has stated, in absolute terms, the criminal misuse of firearms is not a sufficient reason to prohibit their legal ownership or use.

A move for which there is no legal or legitimate basis. Especially when it is limited exclusively to the AR-15, and no other types of firearms.

 

There are no countries to be found in the world that are similar in nature to the united states. It is a wholly unique nation, and cannot be legitimately compared to any others.

The key word being "likely" meaning it is being admitted to on the part of yourself, that the above is nothing more than a hypothesis devoid of proof.

And, once again, none of the above has anything to do with the initial claim on the part of yourself that firearms ownership is in any way connected with the concept of masculinity.

 

This goes to show that if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

 

LOL so no country is similar to the US?????

UK for one without the guns.