El Luchador

BTW this is what real journalism looks like. I highly recommend watching this in it's entirety. This also proof that the CDC is politically driven and their loss of credibility is warranted because they are willing to miss represent data to further their politics.

CDC removes gun statistics on self defense use of guns. Also email show they are working with control group to intentionally suppress information so as to show "scientific" proof against the 2nd ammendment. The video covers this in detail and has the emails.

Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis, and Normalization. change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite their abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.” What stage are we in? I believe we are in the early stages of destabilization.

Or the opposite. You authoritarian leftists love to act like the constitution is complicated, it is not. It is plainly written to be easily understood by all the Citizens. You only need a PhD in constitutional law to manipulate it, not understand it. Previous attempts to convolute the second amendment have been reeled in by the also plain language in the Bruen decision. Historically and traditionally the second amendment has been interpreted as the current court does. That is literally the basis of their decision and their guidance to lower courts.

https://youtu.be/HI9tov6A2DI

That's all you get out of that? You really need to get caught up to today's current standards established as the basis for lower courts to base constitutionality off of. I guarantee it isn't looks like something bad.

You doubling down on that garbage definition doesn't bode well for your position. I can assure you in the unconstitutional former gun ban that no guns were baned with that worthless definition. The only reason to stick to that as having any value in the discussion is to be intentionally vague so as to be able to lump in any and all firearms. Literally every type of firearm design and look has been used as a weapon of war. From the first bamboo fire Lance used by China, to the modern sporting, and defense rifles. So with your definition of Assault rifle there are no guns that should be legal. Pretty sure that's not in compliance with the second amendment. We know this as established law from recent and past Court rulings. We all know that the Webster definition has zero value in this discussion and is nothing more than a straw man argument to make yourself feel as if you have a basis for your position, but you are the only one buying it.

Well you can't define it so it's difficult to know. It's an assault weapon if it looks like an assault weapon. Forgive my ignorance. As long as we're making issues out of inconsequential weapon based on Hollywood depiction I suggest the Trebuchet. They are completely unregulated unregistered and can be made without government oversight. Ghost Trebuchets should not be legal, should not be allowed near schools and should require a strict background check and licensing. A true weapon of war capable of mass casualties. If it saves even 1 life it's worth it.

Or were you concerned about these:

I assumed you didn't know, never said I didn't know. Armor vehicles mounted artillery doesn't seem to be real relevant to a discussion about guns. You again make an argument over a situation that doesn't exist as if it's a huge problem facing Americans.

Guess which one is the most common Deer cartridge?

Great example of a complete non issue.

No love for Mel?

I'm not against guns just weapons of war. So that would be the Winchester model 70, it was used by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam, the Remington model 700, used as the short range marksman rifle, the Ithaca pump action 12 gauge, used as a WW1 trench gun, the Colt 1911 std issue side arm from WW1 till the 1980s, the Beretta 92, used by Mel Gibson in lethal weapon but also by the US military replacing the 1911, the Sig sauer 320 now having replaced the Beretta 92, the Glock 19 used by Seals, and the Sig 226 it replaced. The colt SAA carried by General Patton, the Springfield Trapdoor single shot 45-70 attributed to thw defeat of Custer, the Winchester lever action, Springfield 1903, the M1, the flint lock, the muzzle loader.... So basically everything

Clearly you do not. Explain to me what defines a deer rifle. The gun I most use for deer hunting is a Remington 7400. Is that not an assault rifle. It's not plastic, shares no cosmetic features of a bushmaster other than it has a stock and forearm and trigger. But I can tell you with certainty it is a far more deadly rifle. Also do you know what a cannon is? Or is that more hyperbole?

Still crickets

No armed security in schools, and no gun safety in schools, teach victim hood ignore personal responsibility, and say we want to reduce gun violence. This issue is almost 100 percent a reflection of the society created by leftist ideology. Violence in media, video games and on the internet but it's a gun issue.

And why were so many officers there for a traffic stop

It actually is. It was first coined by an anti gun group to render an emotional response. It has no practical or specific meaning in the actual gun and military world. It is pure and simple hyperbole. Old man Pelosi was assaulted with hammer there for assault hammer is accurate, I was attacked with a sawed off golf club modified to make it more concealable therefore an assault golf club. Repeating the meaningless term will never make it accurate.

Critical thinking: regurgitating leftist ideology catch phrases programed during indoctrination under the guise of education.

Are you willing to accept that if a gun can be used for hunting then it is protected?

That is a just plain stupid. Another catch phrase with no actual definition bit being vague is the SOP of the left. Hyperbole is all you got.

You sure like to ignore the fact that the main battle rifle issued to the military is not available to the general public, ones with similar looks are. You straight up want to ban guns and you'll start with what is easiest to gain an emotional response over.

False statements. Guns are made to hunt, for recreational fun and for self defense. Guns are also protected specifically by the constitution. I don't need to justify my use, and I most certainly do need to adjust the cosmetics of my gun to suit an emotional response by a totally uninformed anti gunner.

How poorly defined is a definition that used the words it's trying to define to explain it. That's some real intellectual shit.