The NRA is suing Gov. Cuomo after New York closed gun shops as non-essential businesses

Who have what to do with the USA?

Who is saying it is absolute, or did you just make that up? The AR 15 is a commonly used firearm.

 

I responded to you claiming to understand needs of rural people. I’m pointing out your error. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you don’t want your fraud of pretending to know what rural people need exposed, don’t make the claim.

 

No, Bush believed the intel agencies, the same people who pushed the Russia collusion hoax.

 

Ha ha. The intel said no evidence of wmd. It was Cheney who lied about it to Dems. No different then what fat Albert said about the Mueller report which we haven’t seen. Trump.....”Russia if you’re listening......” and on.

 

Actually, according to the NYT there were WMDs in Iraq: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Fat Nadler and the Intel agencies were wrong about the collusion delusion. Does it bother you they committed premeditated fraud on the FISA court and altered exculpatory evidence?

 

Figured you would take the coward way out.

 

List all the attacks by hordes of drug dealers on farmers. You’ve pointed out no error. You like the AR among others....so what are the others. One of mine is a freakin shot gun and another a bolt action .270...far and away better all round guns for farmers and ranchers. And they don’t have 30 rd mags. AR15 s are weapons of war. Has the govt threatened you with a take over ? Well, Trump the fool is taking farm lands for his foolish fence. So maybe the con man Trump....but never liberals.

 

According to Bush himself.....no wmds. Ha ha ha ha ha

 

Even if I did, it's way better than to continue to look like a fool....

 

And yet you manage both easily..

The link i provided shows you have been pushing a lie.. Instead of manning up you ignore it.. Is your stupid agenda that important that you would knowingly lie?

 

Tell me why a shotgun and a bolt action .270 are better for farmers and ranchers. This should be good.

Your error is you have no idea what a farmer or rancher needs.

 

Now you think Bush can't be wrong?

 

So were the rifles patriots won the Revolutionary war with.

If it does millions of patriots are ready.

I get it, you want open borders.

 

The two hundred year old argument doesn’t work. Muskets were only viable weapons of war when fired in ranks. You’re talking with someone who spent years doing revolutionary reenactment.

These weapons were also regulated by the militia company as well. So don’t use that as an example. The rifle was far and away a better farmer’s firearm.

now that you lost another debate, it’s open borders ? Ha ha.

You’re a rancher and think a fence will stop people ? They stop animals. Loss number two.

 

Bully for you, but irrelevant to my point that they had weapons of war. Do you think the press should be limited to using quill pens?

Cite, or did you just make that up? The Founders considered the militia to be all able bodied men.

I don't care about farmers, I care about defending against a tyrannical government, most likely coming from the left.

I'm sure you believe that.

Dodge noted.

 

Provide the evidence of such a claim, when the united states federal government itself has stated that firearms such as the AR-15 are not so-called "weapons of war".

 

So now the argument on the part of yourself, is that firearms technology should not have been legally allowed to develop beyond a certain point?

 

Correct, at least not for citizen use for self defense. and definitely not for those rabid gun adventurers who view firearms as an extension of their man hood. What kind of person is strange enough to think that way...no”limit” for firearm tech for non military personnel ? These ideas are really strange to ordinary people who have a life outside of serial firearm derangement.

 

Flintlock pistols would be useless for self defense, let alone opposing a tyrannical government.

Stop projecting.

 

What should the cutoff date have been? At what point in the history of the developments of firearms technology, should laws have been implemented to prevent any further advancement and/or development on the matter? Explain such.

Post the evidence that shows anyone actually believes such to be the case.

The same so-called "ordinary people" who apparently saw nothing wrong with using twentieth century firearms technology and designs for hunting in the location where you grew up? The same ones who apparently did not willingly limit themselves to seventeenth century firearms technology?

 

I'm still waiting for him to answer if the media should be limited to using quill pens.

 

Strange. Is every overt supporter of the idea that personal firearms are useful defense against the government ?
That’s really strange. Tell me how you’re going to accomplish this. You got your own tank ? Nope. You’re ok on your farm, but you’re little pop guns are illegal in Boston, as well they should be; you could hurt someone.

Btw, we had an armory. We weren’t allowed to take the cannon home....

 

You’re a strange dude.

 

The people of the nation of Vietnam did not need equal hardware to the united states military in order to resist for numerous years. Vehicles such as tanks and fighter jets mean absolutely nothing, especially in a major metropolitan area where collateral damage would turn the public against the government in very short order.

 

That worked out well vs b52 s didn’t it. btw, it was not South Vietnamese government , but the VC and the north. Don’t say....Vietnam....