I was blocked yesterday by a man who would not be honest.

@dakotaviper Actually, the question of treason is precisely what is the issue here. You are distracting and deflecting, just as he did. Do not think that my attention span is so poor that I will be distracted by your pro Russia agenda, my friend, nor your attempt to convince me you care about the rights of mass murderers to possess weapons of war.

@dakotaviper Technically those are new jobs if they aren't existing jobs. Trump lost over 3 million jobs, but Biden is adding jobs back. Yes, some of them may be doing the same things people did years ago, but at least he is creating them, like all presidents before him but one.

Biden has specified what he would like to see done, so your statement that all he has done has said we must do something is categorically false. This is what he said four days ago:

[quoteAs he has stressed before, Mr. Biden called for the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to be reinstated — nearly 20 years after it expired — but said if that cannot be done, then the minimum purchasing age for semi-automatic weapons should be raised from 18 to 21 years old. He also called for a strengthening of background checks, for safe-storage and red-flag laws to be enacted, and for the immunity that shields gun manufacturers from liability to be repealed.

The president also called for mental health resources to be bolstered, saying there is a "serious youth mental health crisis in this county."][/quote]

@CorvusBlackthorne I never ever said that I support Russia, so don't attach those words to me. Hate to tell you this, but my 1861 Springfield is a weapon of war as well as my CS Richmond with the date code of March 12, 1863 stamped on it. Also you can throw in my 1858 Sharps in the pile too.

@dakotaviper I doubt any of those weapons can fire 100-150 rounds a minute.

@dakotaviper You whinged about the United States financially supporting the Ukraine. Explain the difference.

Are they semiautomatic? Do they accommodate a 30-round magazine? Can one reload them in fewer than five seconds?

@windinhishair doesn't matter because they are Military Assault Rifles. And you one the Left want those type of Rifles Banned. This is what people like you keep on saying over and over, 'Military Assault Weapons Must Be Banned'. I just gave you 3 examples.

@dakotaviper Those examples are not weapons that are capable of what an AR-15 can do. There is no reason we cannot ban weapons of mass killing while leaving weapons from the 1800s legal. None at all. It depends on how the legislation is crafted. It is disingenuous to suggest an 1858 Sharps is the same as a current military weapon. If it were, the military would still be issuing 1858 Sharps to all service members. Incredibly, they are not.

@CorvusBlackthorne a friend of mine works for a security company that just installed metal detectors at a major university. Those detectors cost $398,000. Now we just gave Ukraine $40 Billion. There are 130,000 schools here in the USA today.
So let's do some math.
$40,000,000,000 divided by 130,000 is $307,693.
It's granted that not every school would have to spend $398,000. But wouldn't it be better to spend that money securing our schools instead of giving it away.

Now for your other statement. You people keep on saying Military Assault Weapons must be banned. I just gave you 3 examples. Educate yourself on what you're actually saying first.

@windinhishair tell that to Major General John Reynolds that the 1858 Sharps is not a very good weapon of war. The head shot that killed him was credited at over 500 yards. One of these days, if you were ever to do any research whatsoever, you just might be able to improve the nomenclature about what you're demanding. Otherwise, I'll fight you tooth and nail over my Rights!

@dakotaviper Reynolds was killed at Gettysburg in 1863, which has absolutely nothing to do with the weapons of today. As I said before, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that legislation cannot be crafted to eliminate the military weapons of today that have one purpose--to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Your "rights" do not include being able to own any weapon of your choice at any time for any reason. You need to educate yourself on the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment in the Heller v. DC decision. You would probably be surprised that it specifically addresses gun control.

@windinhishair granted, you and I know the difference, but over 99% of your brethren do not. That's factual and I doubt very much that your elected leaders do either.
Afterall, they cannot tell the difference between a clip and a magazine or the rates of fire. I've heard so many 'educated' liberals say 1000 rounds a second so many times it's laughable.

@dakotaviper Lack of knowledge is lamentable on both sides of this issue. Why not work to help craft effective legislation that actually addresses the problem?