"If I could have gotten 51 votes, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in."
And again. By your standards is Japan or California a gun sanctuary? They don't have total bans either.
Now, am I going to quote Biden and Obama, or do you get that you're wrong?

My stance is with human rights. Yours is with dictators and secret police.

so, is there any source for that other than ar15.com [*lol*]

My stance is with reality and facts. Yours is with ... dunno... food poisoning? Jewish space lasers?

It was in 60 Minutes in '95. What even the fuck is "ar-15.com"? Actually, I don't care.
Now stow the insults and admit that you're wrong. Or should I find another quote from another influential dem?

You're severely overestimating his literacy levels here, fame

"fame"... *lolololol"

Okay? That doesn't prove me wrong in the least. Unless, by your standards, California and Japan are gun sanctuaries by your standards. I've already said this.
In Washington state a fucking Glock could be an "assault weapon". As for assault rifles? Those have been defacto banned since the 80's. Compromising with the left was Reagan's biggest mistakes in domestic issues.
And like the measure to extend the 3 day background check limit, it really was a backdoor ban and an end run around human and constitutional rights.
"Shall not be infringed". It's always "just one ban" or "just one restriction". For nearly a century it's been piece by piece.
No compliance. No compromise.

That does in fact prove you wrong unless by your standards 2 x 4 = apple pie. Dems are discussing the ban of certain types of guns/magazines. Not. All. Guns. In. General. Means: you're wrong.

But it is all guns. Because it doesn't matter what one particular gun they take issue with today. There will always be another. First it was muzzleloaded rifles kept in a colonial armory. Then it was getting lever guns away from Red skins. Then keeping the black man from having effective arms. Then is was coach guns. M1928's. Suppressors. Strikers and tech-9's. Then AR's, and now all semi-autos and FGC's. Piece by piece. The death of a civil and constitutional right by a thousand cuts.
No more. Not one more step, not one more inch. In fact, I'm glad to see that finally civil rights activists and those loyal to the Constitution of the United States are finally clawing back what should never have been compromised.
Here's the thing about rights: They cannot be voted away. They are above any petty king or god.
If anyone in America doesn't like that, they can go anyplace in the world where smaller people have surrendered their autonomy and liberty. We're here to stay. No more capitulation.

Never understood those people that complain about their countries laws. If you don't like them move country

[x] strawmanning much
[x) soapboxing much
[ ] any backup for your claims but your belief
As expected, as usual.

Never understood those people who believe changing laws and politics was a bad thing per se. If you don't like how your country is changing thru the will of majorities, go to fucking Russia.

Changing laws and politics is not bad. It is literally exactly what I want. But my nation is not "majority rules", and fucking Russia is just like the rest of Europe as far as actual liberty is concerned.
Now stop muddying the issue. Do I or do I not need to provide more quotes or even some legislation that proves dems want us to be stripped of effective armaments. I can pull from examples over 100 years old to stuff said and proposed just this month.
But I feel that it isn't necessary. Your failure to actually respond to anything I said suggests very heavily that you can't refute what I've said.

Ah, Mr. Sidewinder doing his thing again. From "all guns" to what qualifies as "effective armaments" to you and then accusing ME of muddying the water. This complete absence of integrity and honesty looks compulsive, but I'm pretty sure you got it under full control and see it as well-trained rhetorical skills. Cause after all, if you alter your position every time anything you said is addressed, your positions are technically irrefutable
.
And btw: your nation is basically not majority ruled because your party has been working for decades to exclude anyone from voting who wouldn't vote for them. And hey, once your candidate flunks both popular vote as well as the electoral college, something just be wrong with it. Same crooked shit as always.

I detailed in plain English why banning one is just the same as wanting them all gone, using exclusively my own nation's history. Pure and unaltered fact.
We are not majority ruled because our founders and framers knew that mob rule would undermine the liberty they fought for and enumerated in this land's very soul.
And yet again you try to muddy the waters by trying to change the entire conversation. Election insecurity and voter fraud will need an entire other thread to address. Stay on subject, sir.

You can stay in your happy little country. Please. You clearly don't know anything about mine, and that's fine. Just stop trying to tell us how to live.

And again: you're substituting (not even confusing!) facts for your convenient paranoia. More strawmanning, more soap-boxing.

I see we're done here. I'll still be around if ever you have an actual claim or refutation.

Yup, for you to sidewind and twist around in your usual ways. .