Joe Biden wants to ban all semi auto firearms

Right, but the thread subject is about what Biden wants to do, right? So we're talking about what will happen now. if you want to talk about the future you are free to start a thread.

No goal. I'm just merely pointing out reality to folks like yourself. The reality that the votes aren't there for Biden. The reality that multiple conservative SC justices aren't going to be replaced in the next two years. You know, things like that. Sorry if my pointing out reality upsets you but that isn't my problem.

 

Again...WANTING to do something versus ACTUALLY doing something are two very different things. I WANT to be a professional golfer but that will never ACTUALLY happen.

 

you miss the point. the dems have banned guns in some states. the dems have banned guns in the USA before. we must be ever vigilant to prevent their bangasms from increasing

 

what party will have the most justices in ten years?

 

What does that have to do with your comment about there being Dems who WANT to pack the court? When are they going to do it? they had two years to try and nothing, thankfully. They certainly won't be able to do it in the next two years with Repubs, thankfully, controlling the House.

 

No idea and neither do you. Right now the Repubs do and that's all we can actually know about the makeup of the court.

 

All I see here is another admission you cannot prove your claim to be true.

 

1: There is no sound argument for banning any sot of magazine
2: The constitution protects magazines in exactly the same way it protects firearms
So...
No.

 

Which is why we prefer to remain vigilant and strenuously oppose any move or suggestion of a move in the opposite direction.
The beatings will continue until morale improves, essentially.

 

Yes...whining on a message board about things that aren't currently happening is making all the difference.

 

Being aware of what is coming down the pipe, sharing information and resources with each other, and keeping morale up, is fairly useful all things considered.

You're free to simply not frequent the thread since it apparently bothers you so deeply.

 

So really you just want an echo chamber about things that aren't happening to feel all fuzzy and comfy. Whatever floats your boat.

Bothered? Nah, I enjoy pointing out reality to folks who don't live in it.

 

No, you're free to wail and gnash your teeth if that makes you feel nice.

Sure sure, whatever you need to tell yourself. I don't want to criticize your coping mechanisms.

 

Ah…resorting to the grade school tactic I see. Great job

 

Pointing out that if the discussion causes you such distress you don't have to participate in it, distinguishing that from a desire for an echo chamber, and encouraging you to engage in the coping mechanisms you feel fit for the distress you're feeling, is not a grade school tactic. Its a simple statement of how forums work, how discussions amongst persons work, and a genuine encouragement for you not to fall out because people thinking differently than you causes you distress alongside an admission that that is an option for you if you feel it necessary.

You're doing great, keep it up.

 

Thinking I’m distressed is only in your head, likely brought on by your emotions over this. Meh…carry on.

 

If you're not distressed, you sure have a funny way of showing it with you exhorting for people to stop talking about a thread topic in a thread you didn't start about a topic you claim to have no interest in.
Its really quite odd you would feel the need to hide such a thing. None of us judge you for having emotions. You're not a bot.

 

Simply pandering to his base with no realistic way for that which he proposes to become law.

 

Review the COVID Mandates that closed US businesses and schools.
Review the American left wing efforts to restrict free speech.

Then review these same actions in China.

Then look at the news and see what is happening today in China.

Then stop and reflect...

How can you do anything but than God for the Second Amendment?

 

Nope. Never once said people can’t talk about the thread subject. To claim I have is disingenuous. I’ve only merely pointed out reality. Sorry that bothers you.

 

I didn't say you said can't. I said you exhorted for them not to. That is a very clear difference. I like your strawman though. Its even got a fancy hat!

 

Never exhorted either. That you are resorting to being disingenuous is telling.
You really are one confused individual

 

I disagree, the best hunter occasionally misses the first shot, and not finishing the job is cruel.

Or we should not let hunters hunt if they cannot cycle in less than a second. That's not really that difficult so I'm told

 

"To what extent, and under what conditions, does access to arms fuel violent crime? To answer this question, we exploit a unique natural experiment: the 2004 expiration of the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban exerted a spillover on gun supply in Mexican municipios near Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, but not near California, which retained a pre-existing state-level ban. We find first that Mexican municipios located closer to the non-California border states experienced differential increases in homicides, gun-related homicides, and crime gun seizures after 2004."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43654914

Interesting. Gun homicides increased in areas of Mexico close to the border states (except for California) after the expiration of the AWB. That makes sense. California had its own state ban on assault weapons which continued after the federal ban expired.

 

I base my opinion on the preponderance of evidence. Go back and look at studies I've linked to.