Charlottesville, Va., Chief of Police RaShall Brackney indicated she was in favor of a ban on āany weapon that could be used to hunt individuals.ā
That would be, literally, everything. Including fists, feet, and sporks.
That ban would include anything that could be used as a dangerous instrument! Cars, trucks, airplanes, pens, pencils, paper clipsā¦ And as @David38 said, almost any body part.
From everything Iāve been seeing on this matter. I want to know if any of these ANTI-GUN LAW MAKERS REALLY KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS? Because they keep wanting to pass UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. And there ARE ALREADY LAWS ON THE BOOKS NOW THAT DO IT. The FEDERAL ONE IS (18 USC 922(d)) And in Arizona where I live it is (ARS 13-3102.A.5). And these laws ALREADY PROHIBIT THE TRANSFERRING OF A GUN TO A CRIMINAL. Expanded background check laws are based on the FALSE CLAIM THAT YOU ROUTINELY SELL YOUR GUNS TO CRIMINALS, AND THE FANTASY THAT CRIMINALS WILL REPORT WHO THEY SELL OR GIVE THEIR GUNS TO. And MASS KILLERS Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech, 2007), Jared Loughner (Tuscon, 2011), James Holmes (Aurora, CO, 2012), Elliot Rodgers (Isla Vista, CA, 2014), ALL PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECKS TO PURCHASE THEIR GUNS. And Adam Lanza (Newtown CT, 2012) stole his guns. And also the last 3 mass shootings 2 passed background checks and one was a felon and failed several background checks but still was able to get his gun by not going through a background check. Sorry but the ONLY THING THAT BACKGROUND CHECKS DO IS TO KEEP LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FROM BEING ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM NOT ONLY CRIMINALS BUT ALSO OTHER UNKNOWN THREATS THAT MIGHT COME UP.
All I can really think about with all these ādiscussionsā taking place, is that it seems almost nobody involved (lawmakers) have any real knowledge of guns and how they operate. Itās like me making decisions for Apple and Google on what they can and canāt use in their operating systems. Sure, I have a basic understanding of what it looks like and how it works but I have no expert knowledge that allows me to make decisions for them. Iām sure if I tried to tell them what they needed to do I would sound like the person who told me the other day we should ban all guns that go ābang bang bang really quickly.ā
I also wonder why we never talk about banning alcoholā¦seems like itās used as an assault weapon on innocent people far more often than a firearm. Oh wait, that could possibly affect their lives 
oopsā¦
Lets hear it for Dianna Mullerā¦thatās a fantastic example of standing up for your rights and beliefsā¦an example for our kids to follow!!!
Someone get ahold of the design dept at 1776ā¦I want a new t-shirt with her face on itā¦I Will Not Comply!!
What we need to remember is that the object of the anti-gun crowd, lawmakers included, is to disarm the general population. They are not concerned about safety or security except maybe as a side effect. No proposal I have heard does anything to target criminal actors or activity. All of the proposed new laws would only affect persons who are already acting legally and are very unlikely to commit crimes, with or without their legally owned firearms.
This is all about control of the people at large; it has nothing to do with reducing crime or gun related injuries and death. They love the crime, the shootings, and especially the nutjobs shooting up theatres and concerts and Walmarts, because that is what gives them the appearance of caring about victims. In reality the victims are their best advertising, the more the better.
Confront their lies with facts. Oppose their feelings with reason. Expose their agenda with logic.
ā¦ wait @MikeBKY @David38 ā¦ did the Charlottesville, VA Chief of Police just advocate for banningā¦ People?
Why, I think she did!
Not her face, but thereās this:
https://www.lucido.store/i-will-not-comply-t-shirt/?sku=22-19605-69505591-72102205884
Maybe I can get a pic of her, enlarge it and have them make a āstick onā that I can put over the snakeā¦ 
This is exactly right, it is about disarming the population.
Looks like the DC Project elected to go without her faceā¦so I still may need to opt to insert it 
But the least I can do is buy it from them to support their effortsā¦
In all of the ādiscussionsā about āgun controlā, there is a basic fact that is overlooked, or ignored.
No law may supersede, override, or be contrary to the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
A Law Repugnant to the Constitution is Void.
The Constitution does not grant our rights, it guarantees our rights, and government is instituted to secure those rights, and that includes the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no authorization in the Constitution for the government to take any regulatory or legislative action to limit or restrict the right. The government only has āFew and Defined Enumerated Powersā.
When the people are well informed, and those we elect are held accountable, we may maintain the Republic our founders established, but as Benjamin Franklin said when asked what they had given usā¦ āA Republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP ITā.
It was also Franklin that said, āA people that surrender essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.ā
I canāt ignore current red flag laws, bans on magazine capacity, and proposed legislation against certain rifles, any semi-automatic, and a national registration.
The liberals are not trying to take away our rights, they are trying to circumvent the Constitution and SCOTUS to their liking. And, it appears they are winning the battle.
Indeed.
Remember, our founders were wise.
āWhen an act injurious to freedom has once been done, and the people bear it, the repetition of it is more likely to meet with submissionā - Samuel Adams
If we comply and submit, they are more than able to circumvent the Constitution.
I need to like that a lot more than once. ^^^