I've never thought gun control was a magical solution to all the deeply ingrained problems that give rise to mass shootings, but someone's going to have to explain why it should be socially and legally permissible to possess an AK-47 in non-warzones
-
-
Why should they not have AK-47s? the military has it all over the US, in a non-warzone.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
A better, more mature, position than yours. Bro.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Would you accept similar restrictions on the 1st, the 4th, or the 5th?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your position isn't well considered either BRO. You don't know anything about firearms. You could kill a person far more easily and effectively with a 30-.06 bolt action rifle or a 12ga shotgun. Ak47 overheats RAPIDLY, isn't very accurate, and also isn't particularly powerful.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also I assure you the founding fathers deliberated on this far longer and more thoroughly than you've thought about anything period. The federalist papers make it clear they meant weapons consistent with military arms--up to and including artillery. They had repeaters too.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.