[DallasSun]

Yes. I want him. He does not differ with Perry re: immigration. And I do not think his idea of gun control is any different than W’s was. He does not want to come get our guns we use for personal protection. Getting AK 47’s and AR 16’s off the street are a whole different animal. No one wants our guns. I do not want an AK 47.

[Darren McCarty]

Getting AK 47’s and AR 16’s off the street are a whole different animal. No one wants our guns. I do not want an AK 47.

AR 16's don't exist, and it's none of any politician's damn business if I own an AK-47. It does no more or less damage than a deer rifle.

[cripplecreek]

I do not want an AK 47.

I don't want an Ipad. Better get rid of them all.

[jmacusa]

You can have him. He’s done nothing for my state. he thinks illegals haven’t broken any laws. The guys a RINO.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

“I do not want an AK-47.” Then don’t buy one.

I do want one....or two. By the way, an AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun.

The firearms here in America that the media calls “AK-47s”
are actually an AKS....a semi-automatic rifle.

Also, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with “personal protection.” The purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable the people to have the ability to overthrown a tyrannical government should such a government assume power in the United States.

You can have Christie.

[ansel12]

What do you have against rifles?

[dirtboy]

Getting AK 47’s and AR 16’s off the street are a whole different animal.

The so-called assault weapons ban only takes semi-auto knockoffs of AK47s and AR16s off the street. Functionally, rifles no different than a semi-auto hunting rifle. And if you can ban a semi-auto rifle, the next step is to ban semi-auto handguns. Incrementalism at its finest (or worst).

As usual, a gun grabber demonstrates his abject ignorance of the underlying subject matter.

[dirtboy]

Check out post 16 and subsequent posts, we got a live one here.

[dirtboy]

Check out post 16 and subsequent posts, we got a live one here.

[Joe Brower]

This is adapted from John Ross' 'Give It To Them Straight'. Click the link if you want to see the entire document. My website has many such essays.

From the article:

POINT: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."

COUNTERPOINT: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

The right to self-defense is the first law of nature. Firearms rights are human rights.

[trisham]

He does not want to come get our guns we use for personal protection. Getting AK 47’s and AR 16’s off the street are a whole different animal. No one wants our guns. I do not want an AK 47.

*******************************

If our government has superior firepower than we, its citizens, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is thwarted.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Getting AK 47’s and AR 16’s off the street are a whole different animal.” <<

.
To a marxist bastard like you perhaps.

The second ammendment prohibition against all gun laws was put there to assure that the people will always be stronger than the government.

There is no personal weapon that any person Can be constitutionally prevented from owning.

Go join Chuck Schumer, and get off FR.