[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

90


trump-fallen-congresswoman.jpg


1060x600-c4a7e5d9390d446ee3f8e281a556c8e9.jpg


fredericka-wilson-2.jpg


Sheila-Lee-Jackson-Constitution.jpg
 
Skipperlipicus said:
pizzagate
Click to expand...

Right, like the pizzagate thing. Overwhelming evidence that pedophilia is going on with podestas and a street in Washington, but because they are democrats and you support pedophilia, it doesn't fit your narrative and that's impossible.
 
JuggerNaught said:
Not illegal. Anyone can do it and it follows current laws.
Click to expand...

(b) Machinegun. The term 'machinegun' means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can
be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part
designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
Click to expand...

Section 7.5 Manufacturing machineguns. Section 922(o), Title 18, U.S.C., makes it unlawful to
possess or transfer a machinegun, except for transfers to or possession by Federal and State agencies or
the transfer or possession of a machinegun lawfully possessed before the effective date of the statute,
May 19, 1986. So, machineguns “lawfully possessed” before the effective date are those manufactured
before May 19, 1986 and registered in the NFRTR. See also Section 7.6 on the manufacture of
machineguns by contractors of FFLs/SOTs.
Click to expand...

That's from the ATF handbook

It's illegal for private citizens to own post-1986 machine guns.
 
coombz said:
u need a #safespace bro? :violin:
Click to expand...

Lol of course not.

I need quality posts that might actually refute an argument, not the same old worthless parroted bullshit from idiots like kotz that cant seem to provide a single thought of their own. :shrug:

I made the right choice. I hope he's real mad about it hehe
 
-SS- said:
just because you say the point isnt valid, you have to prove it

its sad to have to explain this like you're a child, o well, so be it

whats the point of gun control laws if you cant enforce it?

where's the checkpoints and "papers, please"?

why do you hate your fellow citizens so much? whats wrong with you? so broken -get yourself under control
Click to expand...

It's (willfully) ignorant to point to chicago and say that gun control legislation is ineffective, because the regulations are so easily circumvented by purchases outside the city/state. There may as well be no stronger legislation at all.

It's overly simplistic to say that due to the ubiquity of firearms in the US population that gun control is unenforceable. Yes, criminals won't be handing in their guns for credit. And yet, the existing firearm amounts would decrease over time (probably a long time).

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on gun control, but I do think it's dishonest of gun-rights folks to deny the societal consequences of their preference (more deaths, higher non-stranger homicide rates, expanded capacity of mass homicide)
 
havax said:
Lol of course not.

I need quality posts that might actually refute an argument, not the same old worthless parroted bullshit from idiots like kotz that cant seem to provide a single thought of their own. :shrug:

I made the right choice. I hope he's real mad about it hehe
Click to expand...


Havax is a sjw now prefers his own echo chamber where he can whine and cry in peace

:rofl:
 
Chaol said:
It's (willfully) ignorant to point to chicago and say that gun control legislation is ineffective, because the regulations are so easily circumvented by purchases outside the city/state. There may as well be no stronger legislation at all.

It's overly simplistic to say that due to the ubiquity of firearms in the US population that gun control is unenforceable. Yes, criminals won't be handing in their guns for credit. And yet, the existing firearm amounts would decrease over time (probably a long time).

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on gun control, but I do think it's dishonest of gun-rights folks to deny the societal consequences of their preference (more deaths, higher non-stranger homicide rates, expanded capacity of mass homicide)
Click to expand...


Aren't you saying gun laws are not working because people are breaking the law?
 
havax said:
Lol of course not.

I need quality posts that might actually refute an argument, not the same old worthless parroted bullshit from idiots like kotz that cant seem to provide a single thought of their own. :shrug:

I made the right choice. I hope he's real mad about it hehe
Click to expand...



Reeeeee

giphy.gif


Send the sjw back to his safe space we triggered him

Rhhhheeeeee
 
Is ease of access the argument? Even if we waved our magic wand and said wingardium guns adioso and half the guns disappeared from America.. how long do you think it would take to re-arm places like Chicago and LA?

12 minutes? 72 hours? A week?

Weapons would pour through our borders and now most of the population that do respect law are unarmed and the criminals? Nothing changed.
 
I disagree that illegally imported guns would make much of an impact, but it's a hypothetical so there's not much discussion to be had.
 
Chaol said:
so there's not much discussion to be had.
Click to expand...

Sorry Chaol, I have too. Didn't this start by pointing to Chicago as a prime example of the failure of law in regards to it's effect on gun control?

Then you said because guns are too easy to get by breaking the law.

Then I said distance wouldn't matter.

Then you said there is not much discussion to be had.

I like talking to you but that isn't how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top