To: rellimpank
We better come up with a better argument to keep semi-automatic weapons than “they’re not full auto.”
Especially since it could be argued that aimed semi-auto fire is more “lethal” than full-auto fire.
20 posted on
08/25/2019 5:30:04 AM PDT by
Trailerpark Badass
(There should be a whole lot more going no than throwing bleach, said one woman.)
To: Trailerpark Badass
"We better come up with a better argument to keep semi-automatic weapons than “they’re not full auto.”" Umm.., the founding fathers did that. When they wrote the second amendment the intent was not for hunting or even crime prevention, it is to protect the people from government tyranny. They knew that governments are the greatest danger to freedom. Perhaps they were thinking of the British government primarily, but they knew even our government could become currupted.
30 posted on
08/25/2019 5:43:22 AM PDT by
outofsalt
(If history teaches us anything, it's that history rarely teaches anything.)
To: Trailerpark Badass
We better come up with a better argument to keep semi-automatic weapons than “they’re not full auto.”
Arguments are tough against those who operate on “truth” rather than facts.
53 posted on
08/25/2019 8:21:22 AM PDT by
hanamizu
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson