"Why is banning a specific firearm, today, now, compelling ?
1. Recent events have given the opportunity to say, 'save lives', when in truth, it is just the first step to banning. "

 Again:  Not implementing full bans into my assessment for this topic.

 Keep bringing it up, I will keep explaining that I will not apply it to my discussion.  

 It prohibits the exploration of why this one weapon type is so compelling.


"Let the lefties state for the record that they don't support banning the AR15.

Whoever doesn't
Is "

 That's like saying whoever doesn't reply to a post I made is a jakkass, even if they never read it.  I can't prove they read it, but I can now magically just claim they never responded to this post based off post count alone, which can be manipulated, and as such is an "AR banner", with literally,

zero,

evidence.

"...fully automatics were restricted, along with Sawed-off shotguns and switchblades...:

The 1934, National Firearms Act was the result of the ST. VALENTINE'S DAY MASSACRE.
Which was a gang war, as to who had what area during Probation.
It was spurned by, hysteria, and UN-informed people.
Below is a quip from a paper published in 1933.

"...It is notorious that when restrictions are put upon the possession of firearms or any particular kind of weapon they never are effective against the criminal classes but only put the peaceable man at a disadvantage or in a false position before the law. The prohibition does not bother the enemy of society but it makes a technical offender of the decent citizen. The man who would not misuse a weapon is the man who is injured. The drive for public security is thus given the wrong direction..."

Switchblades are regulated by State.
And those that have regulations, the regulations are very widely ignored.

I'm wrong either way.
I Hafta dig up quotes and accuse,
Or
Let grown men state their position.

Let's see who actually steps up.
Come on gents, go against the facts.

Eegore wrote on 10/07/19 at 19:38:44:

 Prove they read this post and I will consider accepting they are pro-AR ban.  Anything else is pure speculation and finger pointing.

That is your best rendition of tt posting/answering something yet.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/07/19 at 19:44:00:



Who actually believes this isn't being read?
Let's see.

Screw you, Bot.

"The Ol, "Putting Words In Someone Else's Mouth" trick."

 Incorrect.  You specifically cut out the part asking if it were a question in an attempt to make it appear it was a statement.

 The Question Mark at the end indicates that the sentence is a Question.



 So lets quote:

"Let the lefties state for the record that they don't support banning the AR15.

Whoever doesn't
Is "

 How I read the above quote is:

 Whoever doesn't state for the record that they don't support banning the AR-15, Is supporting the banning of AR-15.

 This is supported further by the following:

"Who actually believes this isn't being read?
Let's see.

Screw you, Bot."

 This quote further supports the idea that there is an expectation that this thread is being read by members who choose not to comment.  Based off of past threads where insults were made due to lack of response, justified by post-read counts, I come to the conclusion that JoG expects these threads to be read, and replied to.

 He has made an ultimatum in this thread indicating that anyone who does not explicitly state they are Not for banning AR-15's are the opposite, and Are for banning AR-15's.

 That is complete nonsense based off of many factors, one being that he lacks the authority or knowledge to in any capacity assess what other members think, and also lacks the empirical evidence to even support his ultimatum with factual evidence if the topic is brought up again.

 It's middle-school peer pressure tactics at best.

Doesn't matter.
Nobody's gonna own their desire to ban them.

Obtuse
The people who ignore the fact that I rewrote it.
Look up