This is how the anti gun Left "thinks'

it is amazing how many gun banners rightly critique the idiotic war on drugs and all the problems that prohibition has caused

 

that would be a VALMET. I had one-one of the best rifles ever made but a collector offered me 2500 dollars for a rifle I paid 450 for (this was after the stupid ban) and since I couldn't get parts, I parted with it

 

At what point in the video did he say that?

There is no such exemption. They are thinking about seeking such exemption now that the Russia threat is growing.

Link?

They are not given ammo at home, and nor do they have reason to defend themselves. Its Switzerland, not Louisiana.

The blog is highly misleading. The reservists are not 'getting' anything. They can use those rifles while doing review exercise, which might happen once or twice in a lifetime, although now people can volunteer for it due to Russia threat.

Yes, VALMET RK-62 / RK-95. The Israeli variant is called Galil.

 

At 0:18 he says "common sense gun violence legislation" which is code for abolishing our freedom.

At 1:10 he talks about overruling the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Immediately after that, he talks of abolishing weapons of war, which is also code for abolishing our freedom.

That is incorrect. The exemption to the new law was created when the new law was created. This was more than five years ago. Sometime around 2016.

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

"Transporting guns"
"The transport must be by a reasonable route and requires a valid purpose:"
"To or from courses or exercises in marksmanship, hunting or for military purposes."

They are not dependent on government handouts. They are free to buy their own ammo.

Anyone who is being violently attacked has reason to defend themselves.

That is incorrect. When people in Finland purchase a rifle for national defense, they own that rifle and take possession of it. They are free to use it as much as they want.

They are allowed to train with their guns as much as they want to.

They have always been able to volunteer. This is not a new policy.

 

Aaaah.....the code talk, and then critics explain that they were "actually meant"

What I said is correct.

Yes, they transport the military rifles to and from the military exercises.

Who told you they can use the full-auto military rifles any way they want? Where are you getting it?

Again, those guns are stored by the Finnish Defense Forces, and are only given out during reservist training or mobilization. You are repeating someone else's words, but its incorrect.

The guns are not theirs, so no, they cannot use them as much as they want.

 

When people propose doing something that violates our civil liberties, what they actually mean to do is violate our civil liberties.

No it isn't. You wrongly said that an exemption that was put into place years ago is only being considered now.

They created the exemption to the law back when they created the law itself.

Or to and from a local shooting range if they just want to do a bit of shooting.

I am not sure what you mean by "any way they want". I spoke of taking them to shooting ranges to practice with them. And of defending themselves if they ever found themselves under actual attack.

That the Swiss take their guns to shooting ranges and do a lot of shooting is pretty common knowledge.

That is incorrect. Privately owned guns in Finland are kept in the possession of their private owners.

This includes guns that are privately owned for national defense purposes.

That people in Finland keep possession of their privately-owned guns is not incorrect in any way.

That is incorrect. When people in Finland purchase a gun for themselves, that gun is theirs, even when the reason for the purchase is national defense.

 

He didn't say that. YOU insist on explaining what other people mean when they actually say something else.

I removed the rest, because you are just repeating falsehoods. You know nothing about the Finnish or Swiss gun laws, but its clear you are happy to parrot something you read in the internet.

Like this one:

The rifles we are discussing are NOT privately owned. They are owned and stored by the Finnish Defense Forces and are used only for reservist training. Why is that so difficult to digest?

 

That is incorrect. He said he means to overrule the Supreme Court if they defend the Constitution.

He also said he means to outlaw weapons of war.

The only part where I explained what he meant was when he used the term "common sense gun regulations". And it is a fact that every time that term is used, what is being proposed is a violation of people's civil liberties, so my explanation of what he meant is entirely correct.

That is incorrect. It is true that the Finish exemption for purchasing guns for national defense was put into place years ago, back when the most recent European gun laws were created.

It is also true that Swiss people take their guns to shooting ranges and do a lot of shooting.

That is incorrect. I know that the Swiss are allowed to take their guns to shooting ranges and practice with them.

I also know that Finland allows people to purchase guns for national defense purposes. And that they have always done so.

That is incorrect. We were discussing guns that people in Finland privately purchase for national defense purposes.

Privately-purchased guns are privately owned in Finland. They stay in the possession of their private owners.

I object to the fact that what you are saying is completely untrue.

 

Whoever is feeding you these things is either ignorant or lying.

 

That is incorrect. That the Swiss do a lot of shooting at gun ranges is true.

That "national defense" is a valid reason for owning semi-auto rifles with 30 round magazines in Finland is also true.

 

Here is the same Reuters article that I linked to before:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-security-finland-idUKKBN0TZ1L820151216

Note the date on the article:
"December 16, 2015 / Updated 7 Years Ago"


Here is a more detailed explanation from Finland, written a couple days later on December 18, 2015:
https://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/hannumononen/208589-finland-and-its-semi-automatic-rifles/

 

Why were you curious about whether or not Justice Thomas wears a bulletproof vest?

 

It's not a "fabricated what if" when it happens more frequently than MSM reports.

For example:

"Police identify "Good Samaritan" who stopped Indiana mall shooting"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/greenwood-park-mall-indiana-mass-shooting-suspect-victims/
EXCERPT "Police on Monday provided more details about the shooting at a mall in Indiana on Sunday that left three victims dead — including the name of the "Good Samaritan" who is believed to have killed the shooter and stopped the attack. Officials called the actions of the armed civilian "nothing short of heroic," noting that the gunman likely would have killed many more people had he not intervened." CONTINUED


@ Trixare4kids politely asked a perfectly legitimate question which was: "...you would object to properly trained, armed pedestrians stopping the threat. Why?"