The 1934 Firearms Act bans civilian ownership of a “machine gun,” defined as a weapon that can fire “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
As various people correct him, it didn't ban them, it did make them much more expensive and troublesome to own. And he fails to understand that with a bump stock the trigger still has to be depressed for each shot. Schooled on that, too.
https://twitchy.com/chad-felix-greene/2024/06/15/completely-inaccurate-and-ignorant-dana-loesch-schools-harvard-professor-on-what-guns-are-n2397321
Second current example is this:
Gaze upon this "I KNOW HISTORY!" from someone who apparently knows nothing of the subject she's lecturing about.
How do you reason with them?
7 comments:
So, the 1st amendment only applies to quills/ink/parchment??
Intellectual Morons !!!
It is beginning to seem that the only way to reason with such people is to thump them with the clue bat until they wake up and listen.
I still try to talk to people like these, but I recognize that their beliefs are religious tenets, and thus immune to logic, reason, or change.
John in Indy
You don’t reason with them, it’s a waste of time. They are lost causes bleating out the lies.
When they occasionally say the quiet part out loud -> “We need to ban all guns.” Believe them.
You said it right (opposition doesn't know what it is talking about). The bottom line is liberals are opposed to the private ownership of firearms unless it is to protect them personally.
Reality is a foreign concept for tyrants. And any excuse to disarm their slaves is a good excuse. They do not want the slaves to think or to realize they have a choice.
Personally I prefer silence to the yammering of anyone that can not define a woman on any subject. They have been judged as wanting for a purpose that can not exist in reality. A life of desperate futility is maddening. No wonder their so unpleasant.
Democratic democracy can never be fully realized if their slaves are armed.
Post a Comment