# Assault weapons ban



## blackhawk

The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?


----------



## Grandma

Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from. It's not like having all hard alcohol and "good" beer removed and all we get is one brand of lite beer. 

If the guns are banned, you can still keep the ones you have.

Does that mean only bad guys will get assualt rifles? Has it not occurred to anyone that if the guns are banned then gun manufacturers will stop making them? If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload? If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?


----------



## Stephanie

Grandma said:


> Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from. It's not like having all hard alcohol and "good" beer removed and all we get is one brand of lite beer.
> 
> If the guns are banned, you can still keep the ones you have.
> 
> Does that mean only bad guys will get assualt rifles? Has it not occurred to anyone that if the guns are banned then gun manufacturers will stop making them? If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload? If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?



 does it mean if abortions were banned people would stop having them and it would put the abortion clinics out of business?
And if women were REQUIRED to have a background check before abortion that would prevent them from having one?

get it?


----------



## varelse

define: 'assault weapon'


----------



## hjmick

varelse said:


> define: 'assault weapon'



Almost nothing that appears on Feinstein's list...


----------



## Underhill

I think Biden actually got it right on this one.     It's less about the type of gun than the amount of ammo it can hold.     Even then it won't stop anything, but it could make a marginal difference that might save a few lives a year.


----------



## blackhawk

Underhill said:


> I think Biden actually got it right on this one.     It's less about the type of gun than the amount of ammo it can hold.     Even then it won't stop anything, but it could make a marginal difference that might save a few lives a year.



I agree the ammo amount might make a slight difference though someone carrying three ten round clips can do as much damage as someone with one thirty round magazine in my opinion you can drop a empty clip out and put a full in real fast. Personally I don't think the mental health part of this has been addresses at all your not really solving anything till you deal with that.


----------



## varelse

Underhill said:


> I think Biden actually got it right on this one.     It's less about the type of gun than the amount of ammo it can hold.     Even then it won't stop anything, but it could make a marginal difference that might save a few lives a year.



I think you meant to say it's not about the type of gun or its ammo capacity; rather, it's about who has the gun.

Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein


> military-style assault weapons



What about non-'military-style' 'assault weapons'? What is 'military-style'? Black? On a sling? 
ufacturing and importation of:


> at least one military feature: pistol grip;does not effect how or what the weapon fires, nor the firing rate, nor who's holding it forward grip same; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock same. ; grenade launcher or rocket launcher OMG, do you people realize their are already laws about this? ; barrel shroud because you should be required to burn yourself when hunting or defending your home...; or threaded barrel which, again, does not effect the operation of the firearm .



So... the shape of the grip- pistol grip or not... that's what these idiots are freaking out about, because that totally effects... anything 

How does a pistol grip change the operation of my shotgun? 





> shotgun with a revolving cylinder.


Because the way the round is cycled effects... nothing...

And how do you measure the number of 'rounds' my shotgun holds? Are they going to ban mini-shells?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unless your weapon has a disconnect it doesn't really matter how many rounds you have per magazine if you change mags. while you still have a round in the chanber. You won't run out of ammo until you run out of loaded mags. or had to fire that emergency round in the chamber


----------



## PaulS1950

WordsFromTheFoundingFathers:

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
 - Samuel Adams

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
 ~Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
 ~Benjamin Franklin


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
 George Mason
 Co-author of the Second Amendment
 during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence's and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
 George Washington
 First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
 Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
 Richard Henry Lee
 American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
 Patrick Henry
 American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
 Thomas Jefferson
 Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; "
 Thomas Jefferson
 letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
 Alexander Hamilton
 The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
 - Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
 - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
 - John Adams

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
 - Patrick Henry


A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. ~George Washington


----------



## 52ndStreet

PaulS1950 said:


> WordsFromTheFoundingFathers:
> 
> The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
> - Samuel Adams
> 
> The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
> ~Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
> ~Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
> George Mason
> Co-author of the Second Amendment
> during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
> 
> "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence's and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
> George Washington
> First President of the United States
> 
> "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
> Thomas Paine
> 
> "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> Richard Henry Lee
> American Statesman, 1788
> 
> "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
> Patrick Henry
> American Patriot
> 
> "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
> Thomas Jefferson
> Third President of the United States
> 
> "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; "
> Thomas Jefferson
> letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
> 
> "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
> Alexander Hamilton
> The Federalist Papers at 184-8
> 
> "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
> 
> "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
> - John Adams
> 
> "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
> - Patrick Henry
> 
> 
> A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. ~George Washington



The real goal is to confiscate all weapons from American citizens, and people in the third world. So the United Nations can implement their New World order agenda on America, and the entire world. The United Nations has a small arms treaty coming up for ratification
by the U.S. Senate. 

They want to disarm people all over the entire Earth , so they more easily take over 
you, your property, and what ever else of value that you may have.
This is what the New World Order is about.
They don't want you to have an assault rilfe, or high capacity ammo clip, they don't want you to defend yourself properly.
Its all been planned for many years now.
We as Americans, can not allow it to happen.


----------



## Snookie

It seems like the pro gun people believe in "rule from beyond the grave."

The constitution is a living document.

It is time for stricter gun control.

Stop the hating.


----------



## PaulS1950

I don't have it in my heart to hate. We are born with the instinct to protect our loved ones and ourselves. This is an inate right that all living things do. While the constitution is a living document the rights listed and unlisted (according to the ninth amendment) are a part of human nature and are provided not by the constitution but presented there for government to protect. The right to self defence can be seen in all life throughout nature. The use of weapons is not limited to humans alone but it is a right to be able to protect ones self and those we care about with what ever force might be used against us. As long as criminals have semi-automatic weapons it is our right and duty to have them as well. Ruling from "beyond the grave" has nothing to do with the discussion. 
You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others. 
If you have ever struck back at someone who struck you first then you belive in the right of self defense. If someone broke into your home and threatened you, your mother, wife or children with a gun what would you do? If there was a mob of people coming down the street burning homes and beating the people who ran out, what would you do?
Murder is wrong - it is against the laws of man and G_d. Is it any less wrong to make yourself or your family victims of murder through your choice to not defend yourself? It is better to let the murderer go, to commit more than it is to stop him? Is it better to die senselessly than it is to use a gun to stop a murderer?
Rarely do people who defend themselves and others kill an assailant. The usual outcome is that he is held by the citizen until the police arrive. Less often the assailant is wounded and picked up in a hospital and arrested. In a few cases the assailant is killed and prevented from ever harming anyone else ever again. Why is it that you want criminals to be the only ones armed?


----------



## martybegan

Grandma said:


> Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from. It's not like having all hard alcohol and "good" beer removed and all we get is one brand of lite beer.
> 
> If the guns are banned, you can still keep the ones you have.
> 
> Does that mean only bad guys will get assualt rifles? Has it not occurred to anyone that if the guns are banned then gun manufacturers will stop making them? If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload? If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?



It would also make the guns harder to use if they were needed in case of someone breaking into your house. Would the government then be responsible for the death of a person found shot dead right next to thier gun safe, as they were trying to get access to thier weapon?


----------



## Snookie

PaulS1950 said:


> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.


 
The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.

Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?


----------



## chikenwing

Snookie said:


> It seems like the pro gun people believe in "rule from beyond the grave."
> 
> The constitution is a living document.
> 
> It is time for stricter gun control.
> 
> Stop the hating.




The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
~Thomas Jefferson

Missed that one didn't cha

who's really doing the  hating??


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Snookie said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
Click to expand...


Is it paranoia or a desire to rule that drives the anti-gunner?


----------



## martybegan

Snookie said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
Click to expand...


With a bar set so high to make it a widely supported measure, most of the time (prohibition anyone).

If you can get 2/3 of BOTH houses of congress, and 3/4 of the states to agree, then you can amend the consitituion. What we have now is progressives trying to convince 5 of 9 people (the supreme court) to bypass the constituion by judicial fiat.


----------



## varelse

Snookie said:


> The constitution is a living document



Which includes, within its text, the procedures for modifying its content.




Snookie said:


> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.


The Constitution was drafted, written, and ratified by a minority. Just sayin'


----------



## PaulS1950

While the rights are constitutionally guaranteed, they are not constitutional rights. They are, or were ment to be, above governmental and congressional intervention.
It is just in the last 60 years that the misunderstanding of our rights has been introduced. 
Would it be acceptable that certain topics would be removed from freedom of speech?
 for instance - you can no longer discuss different forms of government or you can no longer discuss religious matters outside of a church or church educational institution.
Would that constitute an acceptable limitation on your first amendment rights?
After all, we aren't removing your right to freedom of religion and nobody needs to talk about religion unless they are in the process of practicing that religion.
Or maybe something less abherent like you can no longer say anything against the government. No more name calling of sitting or ex-politicians.

That is the same thing you want to do with our rights that are protected by the second amendment.
Does it feel different when it is a right you enjoy exercising?


----------



## blackhawk

Here are a couple of things I have found silly about this proposed ban a gun having a collapsable stock or a pistol grip would now be considered a assault weapon. These have nothing to do with rate of fire or ammo capacity so the logic behind this escapes me.


----------



## PaulS1950

I know people who have thumb-hole stocks on their target rifles and they are single shot, bolt action, .22 caliber rifles that are only good for shooting at paper targets that are between 100 and 400 meters away.
Most target rifles have both a pistol grip and a forearm palm rest andsome have removable magazines. Does that make them assault rifles? Not hardly, with the 24x50 scope you could be aiming at a man's head at 100 yards and only see the surface of his skin and not know whether you were looking at his head or his a.....um......    arm.


----------



## Snookie

varelse said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is a living document
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which includes, within its text, the procedures for modifying its content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution was drafted, written, and ratified by a minority. Just sayin'
Click to expand...

 
That's because the constitutio was different when it was first ratified.

That was then and this is now.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?



Its almost identical to the 94 ban: 

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4


----------



## blackhawk

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its almost identical to the 94 ban:
> 
> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
Click to expand...


The general consensus is the 94 ban did very little to decrease gun violence if this one is basically the same it makes me wonder what the point of it is outside of trying to score some political brownie points?


----------



## Snookie

Obama is going to pwn the gun lobby this time.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

blackhawk said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Biden actually got it right on this one.     It's less about the type of gun than the amount of ammo it can hold.     Even then it won't stop anything, but it could make a marginal difference that might save a few lives a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the ammo amount might make a slight difference *though someone carrying three ten round clips can do as much damage as someone with one thirty round magazine* in my opinion you can drop a empty clip out and put a full in real fast. Personally I don't think the mental health part of this has been addresses at all your not really solving anything till you deal with that.
Click to expand...


Thats been my observation as well.


----------



## PaulS1950

Snookie said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
Click to expand...


In a democracy the voice of the majority has thepower to dictate to the rest but we do not live in a democracy.

We live in a constitutional Republic. In a Republic the individuals have rights that are beyond the grasp of the majority and the government. that is why, no matter what you do with the constitution, we still have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves and the constitution. 

what drives this "pro gunner" is education between what you think and what is real. It is the knowledge of the constitution, its beginnings and its evolution. It is the study of the framers convictions and how important they are to a truly independent and free society. I feel sorry for you because you do not understand where your rights come from. without that understanding you are too willing to give them up - just like other people in other countries and other times. You are bound to repeat the worst parts of history because like the people of Germany you actually believe that your government is going to protect you from all evil - even when they become that evil.
I would rather die than give up my rights. They were given to me by G_d (or nature if you prefer) and no man or group of men can take them from me without killing me. At least then I will find the peace that I crave.


----------



## asaratis

Snookie said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
Click to expand...

The United States is NOT a democracy.

Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.


A democracy would have likely degenerated into a socialist state within a decade and we would have no rights other than what the dear ruler passed down to the central committee to impose upon the masses that had no means to defend themselves against the armed oppression of the government

It is pure idiocy to favor mob rule.  Checks and balances are intended to protect us all from democracy.


----------



## Saigon

asaratis said:


> The United States is NOT a democracy.
> 
> Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.
> 
> 
> .



The US IS a democracy - it is just not a DIRECT democracy. It's a representative democracy. 

It's also worth remembering that referendums are signs of a direct democracy - and plenty of states hold referendums, don't they? 

Some 58% of American support tighter gun control laws - while 6% say they should be looser. 

If you believe in the will of the people, then you are going to back the 58%.


----------



## The Rabbi

Saigon said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is NOT a democracy.
> 
> Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US IS a democracy - it is just not a DIRECT democracy. It's a representative democracy.
> 
> It's also worth remembering that referendums are signs of a direct democracy - and plenty of states hold referendums, don't they?
> 
> Some 58% of American support tighter gun control laws - while 6% say they should be looser.
> 
> If you believe in the will of the people, then you are going to back the 58%.
Click to expand...


Was there a vote taken?  Link?
Let me ask the question and I will give you the poll result you want.

Do you favor laws that will only disarm honest American citizens and leave criminals in control of deadly weapons?

Anyway, even people backing an AWB concede it doesnt do anything to control violence.  So it is an empty political gesture, with real infringements on liberty.


----------



## jtpr312

Snookie said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
Click to expand...


Is it ignorance or paranoia that drives some anti-gun nutters, or both?


----------



## The Rabbi

jtpr312 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it ignorance or paranoia that drives some anti-gun nutters, or both?
Click to expand...


Both.  That and a utopian desire that most people have outgrown by the teenage years.


----------



## Saigon

jtpr312 said:


> Is it ignorance or paranoia that drives some anti-gun nutters, or both?



It is not paranoia or ignorance to suggest that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations - it's a fact.

Until you guys start addressing points like this with a little honesty, you are not really going to get to the starting point of this issue.


----------



## The Rabbi

Saigon said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ignorance or paranoia that drives some anti-gun nutters, or both?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not paranoia or ignorance to suggest that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations - it's a fact.
> 
> Until you guys start addressing points like this with a little honesty, you are not really going to get to the starting point of this issue.
Click to expand...


Actually it is not a fact.  It is a factoid.  Divorced from context it is meaningless.  The fact is that if you are a middle class white person your chances of dying from gunshot wounds are about what they are in France.

But even if that were fact, there are no proposals for laws that would affect that fact one bit.


----------



## Saigon

The Rabbi - 

That's not a terribly strong argument, is it?!

Again, Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations. By using laws similar to those in those 20 countries, the US could reduce its homicide rate massively. 

When you are willing to address that point rather than run away from it, let me know.


----------



## Underhill

varelse said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Biden actually got it right on this one.     It's less about the type of gun than the amount of ammo it can hold.     Even then it won't stop anything, but it could make a marginal difference that might save a few lives a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant to say it's not about the type of gun or its ammo capacity; rather, it's about who has the gun.
> 
> Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
> 
> 
> 
> military-style assault weapons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about non-'military-style' 'assault weapons'? What is 'military-style'? Black? On a sling?
> ufacturing and importation of:
> 
> 
> 
> at least one military feature: pistol grip;does not effect how or what the weapon fires, nor the firing rate, nor who's holding it forward grip same; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock same. ; grenade launcher or rocket launcher OMG, do you people realize their are already laws about this? ; barrel shroud because you should be required to burn yourself when hunting or defending your home...; or threaded barrel which, again, does not effect the operation of the firearm .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... the shape of the grip- pistol grip or not... that's what these idiots are freaking out about, because that totally effects... anything
> 
> How does a pistol grip change the operation of my shotgun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the way the round is cycled effects... nothing...
> 
> And how do you measure the number of 'rounds' my shotgun holds? Are they going to ban mini-shells?
Click to expand...


Nope, I meant exactly what I said.


----------



## The Rabbi

Saigon said:


> The Rabbi -
> 
> That's not a terribly strong argument, is it?!
> 
> Again, Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations. By using laws similar to those in those 20 countries, the US could reduce its homicide rate massively.
> 
> When you are willing to address that point rather than run away from it, let me know.



I am addressing the point.
Strip out crimes committed by black and Hispanic men between 15 and 30 and our deaths from gun violence look like anyplace in Western Europe.

It is not the laws that make the difference.  It is culture.  Until you can understand that there is no debate.


----------



## tap4154

The Rabbi said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi -
> 
> That's not a terribly strong argument, is it?!
> 
> Again, Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations. By using laws similar to those in those 20 countries, the US could reduce its homicide rate massively.
> 
> When you are willing to address that point rather than run away from it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am addressing the point.
> *Strip out crimes committed by black and Hispanic men between 15 and 30 and our deaths from gun violence look like anyplace in Western Europe.
> 
> It is not the laws that make the difference.  It is culture.  Until you can understand that there is no debate*.
Click to expand...



Yep, and add mentally ill folks to that list, which exhibit warning signs before they act out with a gun, but no one takes them seriously or intervenes.


----------



## martybegan

The Rabbi said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi -
> 
> That's not a terribly strong argument, is it?!
> 
> Again, Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations. By using laws similar to those in those 20 countries, the US could reduce its homicide rate massively.
> 
> When you are willing to address that point rather than run away from it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am addressing the point.
> Strip out crimes committed by black and Hispanic men between 15 and 30 and our deaths from gun violence look like anyplace in Western Europe.
> 
> It is not the laws that make the difference.  It is culture.  Until you can understand that there is no debate.
Click to expand...


Don't worry you will be called a racist for pointing this out....

Its a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.


----------



## Saigon

Rabbi - 

You are aware that black people do not all live in the US, right?


----------



## LilOlLady

All these laws on gun control has not keep guns out of hand of the mentally ill or criminals or in the homes of carless parents who put guns in hands of kids. Guns in your home killing your kids is your problem, but when it kills other people kids it's a people problem and the only way to protect them is secure the schools like we do prisons.


----------



## Snookie

PaulS1950 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a democracy the voice of the majority has thepower to dictate to the rest but we do not live in a democracy.
> 
> We live in a constitutional Republic. In a Republic the individuals have rights that are beyond the grasp of the majority and the government. that is why, no matter what you do with the constitution, we still have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves and the constitution.
> 
> what drives this "pro gunner" is education between what you think and what is real. It is the knowledge of the constitution, its beginnings and its evolution. It is the study of the framers convictions and how important they are to a truly independent and free society. I feel sorry for you because you do not understand where your rights come from. without that understanding you are too willing to give them up - just like other people in other countries and other times. You are bound to repeat the worst parts of history because like the people of Germany you actually believe that your government is going to protect you from all evil - even when they become that evil.
> I would rather die than give up my rights. They were given to me by G_d (or nature if you prefer) and no man or group of men can take them from me without killing me. At least then I will find the peace that I crave.
Click to expand...

 

Technically a republic but in most American's hearts it is a Democracy.

What you say looks good on paper but in reality it is meh.

God bless America.


----------



## blackhawk

The topic has veered a bit into changing the Constitution or amending the Second Amendment I would just say take a real good look at Congress. Do you really trust these knuckleheads to do that without screwing it up big time?


----------



## Snookie

jtpr312 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it ignorance or paranoia that drives some anti-gun nutters, or both?
Click to expand...

 
No, it's intelligence and humanism.

God bless Ameica.


----------



## Snookie

blackhawk said:


> The topic has veered a bit into changing the Constitution or amending the Second Amendment I would just say take a real good look at Congress. Do you really trust these knuckleheads to do that without screwing it up big time?


 
An amendment must be ratified by 2/3 rds of the states.

Just saying.


----------



## blackhawk

Snookie said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic has veered a bit into changing the Constitution or amending the Second Amendment I would just say take a real good look at Congress. Do you really trust these knuckleheads to do that without screwing it up big time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An amendment must be ratified by 2/3 rds of the states.
> 
> Just saying.
Click to expand...


Assuming Congress does not try to change that rule I put very little past them when it comes to pushing their own agenda.


----------



## Snookie

blackhawk said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic has veered a bit into changing the Constitution or amending the Second Amendment I would just say take a real good look at Congress. Do you really trust these knuckleheads to do that without screwing it up big time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An amendment must be ratified by 2/3 rds of the states.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assuming Congress does not try to change that rule I put very little past them when it comes to pushing their own agenda.[/QUOTIt's not a rule, it's a constituyional enumeration.  The states would have to ratify it.  2/3'rds.  Capice?
Click to expand...


----------



## varelse

tap4154 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi -
> 
> That's not a terribly strong argument, is it?!
> 
> Again, Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations. By using laws similar to those in those 20 countries, the US could reduce its homicide rate massively.
> 
> When you are willing to address that point rather than run away from it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am addressing the point.
> *Strip out crimes committed by black and Hispanic men between 15 and 30 and our deaths from gun violence look like anyplace in Western Europe.
> 
> It is not the laws that make the difference.  It is culture.  Until you can understand that there is no debate*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and add mentally ill folks to that list, which exhibit warning signs before they act out with a gun, but no one takes them seriously or intervenes.
Click to expand...

They'd rather ban scary-looking barrel shrouds because they look scary...


----------



## blackhawk

Snookie said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An amendment must be ratified by 2/3 rds of the states.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming Congress does not try to change that rule I put very little past them when it comes to pushing their own agenda.[/QUOTIt's not a rule, it's a constituyional enumeration.  The states would have to ratify it.  2/3'rds.  Capice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand perfectly what I am saying is don't underestimate the ability of Congress to find a way around that if they really want to.
Click to expand...


----------



## Snookie

blackhawk said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming Congress does not try to change that rule I put very little past them when it comes to pushing their own agenda.[/QUOTIt's not a rule, it's a constituyional enumeration. The states would have to ratify it. 2/3'rds. Capice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand perfectly what I am saying is don't underestimate the ability of Congress to find a way around that if they really want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they might put fluoride in the water to destroy our precious bodily fluids.
Click to expand...


----------



## asaratis

Saigon said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is NOT a democracy.
> 
> Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US IS a democracy - it is just not a DIRECT democracy. It's a representative democracy.
> 
> It's also worth remembering that referendums are signs of a direct democracy - and plenty of states hold referendums, don't they?
> 
> Some 58% of American support tighter gun control laws - while 6% say they should be looser.
> 
> If you believe in the will of the people, then you are going to back the 58%.
Click to expand...

If you gotta use a form of the word "democracy", we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

Sometimes referendums require 2/3 majority.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Snookie said:


> It seems like the pro gun people believe in "rule from beyond the grave."
> 
> The constitution is a living document.
> 
> It is time for stricter gun control.
> 
> Stop the hating.



Numerous Supreme Court cases have held that the type of arms protected by the 2nd are those in common use by the military.


----------



## asaratis

Snookie said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a democracy the voice of the majority has thepower to dictate to the rest but we do not live in a democracy.
> 
> We live in a constitutional Republic. In a Republic the individuals have rights that are beyond the grasp of the majority and the government. that is why, no matter what you do with the constitution, we still have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves and the constitution.
> 
> what drives this "pro gunner" is education between what you think and what is real. It is the knowledge of the constitution, its beginnings and its evolution. It is the study of the framers convictions and how important they are to a truly independent and free society. I feel sorry for you because you do not understand where your rights come from. without that understanding you are too willing to give them up - just like other people in other countries and other times. You are bound to repeat the worst parts of history because like the people of Germany you actually believe that your government is going to protect you from all evil - even when they become that evil.
> I would rather die than give up my rights. They were given to me by G_d (or nature if you prefer) and no man or group of men can take them from me without killing me. At least then I will find the peace that I crave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically a republic but in most American's hearts it is a Democracy.
> 
> What you say looks good on paper but in reality it is meh.
> 
> God bless America.
Click to expand...

That's why the Pledge of Allegiance ends with "to the Republic for which it stands."


----------



## Snookie

asaratis said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a democracy the voice of the majority has thepower to dictate to the rest but we do not live in a democracy.
> 
> We live in a constitutional Republic. In a Republic the individuals have rights that are beyond the grasp of the majority and the government. that is why, no matter what you do with the constitution, we still have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves and the constitution.
> 
> what drives this "pro gunner" is education between what you think and what is real. It is the knowledge of the constitution, its beginnings and its evolution. It is the study of the framers convictions and how important they are to a truly independent and free society. I feel sorry for you because you do not understand where your rights come from. without that understanding you are too willing to give them up - just like other people in other countries and other times. You are bound to repeat the worst parts of history because like the people of Germany you actually believe that your government is going to protect you from all evil - even when they become that evil.
> I would rather die than give up my rights. They were given to me by G_d (or nature if you prefer) and no man or group of men can take them from me without killing me. At least then I will find the peace that I crave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically a republic but in most American's hearts it is a Democracy.
> 
> What you say looks good on paper but in reality it is meh.
> 
> God bless America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the Pledge of Allegiance ends with "to the Republic for which it stands."
Click to expand...

 
Big deal.  The pledge is not law.  der.


----------



## asaratis

RetiredGySgt said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like the pro gun people believe in "rule from beyond the grave."
> 
> The constitution is a living document.
> 
> It is time for stricter gun control.
> 
> Stop the hating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numerous Supreme Court cases have held that the type of arms protected by the 2nd are those in common use by the military.
Click to expand...


That is true and quite logically so.  If we are to be able to form a militia to protect us from the government, it must have comparable weapons.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi -
> 
> That's not a terribly strong argument, is it?!
> 
> Again, Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations. By using laws similar to those in those 20 countries, the US could reduce its homicide rate massively.
> 
> When you are willing to address that point rather than run away from it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am addressing the point.
> Strip out crimes committed by black and Hispanic men between 15 and 30 and our deaths from gun violence look like anyplace in Western Europe.
> 
> It is not the laws that make the difference. It is culture. Until you can understand that there is no debate.
Click to expand...

 
The culture is now in the majority now.  How you like that?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

blackhawk said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its almost identical to the 94 ban:
> 
> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The general consensus is the 94 ban did very little to decrease gun violence if this one is basically the same it makes me wonder what the point of it is outside of trying to score some political brownie points?
Click to expand...


It will score some points, but only with local constituents.


----------



## tap4154

asaratis said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is NOT a democracy.
> 
> Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US IS a democracy - it is just not a DIRECT democracy. It's a representative democracy.
> 
> It's also worth remembering that referendums are signs of a direct democracy - and plenty of states hold referendums, don't they?
> 
> Some 58% of American support tighter gun control laws - while 6% say they should be looser.
> 
> If you believe in the will of the people, then you are going to back the 58%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you gotta use a form of the word "democracy", we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
> *
> Sometimes referendums require 2/3 majority.
Click to expand...


Actually we are a Representative Republic. We elect folks to represent us. We do have aspects of democracy and socialism as well, but the founders specifically did not want us to the a "pure" democracy. They put in many checks, balances  and safeguards against mob rule and tyranny, including 3 branches of gov't, and the Second Amendment.


----------



## Snookie

PaulS1950 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no matter what you do with the constitution, we still have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves and the constitution.
> 
> 
> I would rather die than give up my rights. They were given to me by G_d (or nature if you prefer) and no man or group of men can take them from me without killing me. At least then I will find the peace that I crave.
Click to expand...

 
Wrong, the constitution is the rule of law. Isn't that what you conservatives kept saying during Clinton's impeachment? "No one is above the law"?

Given to you by God? Holy Moses!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

blackhawk said:


> The topic has veered a bit into changing the Constitution or amending the Second Amendment I would just say take a real good look at Congress. Do you really trust these knuckleheads to do that without screwing it up big time?



Given the fact the new AWB will not pass in the Senate, it would seem theyre addressing the issue in a responsible manner.


----------



## Snookie

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic has veered a bit into changing the Constitution or amending the Second Amendment I would just say take a real good look at Congress. Do you really trust these knuckleheads to do that without screwing it up big time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the fact the new AWB will not pass in the Senate, it would seem theyre addressing the issue in a responsible manner.
Click to expand...

 There are many ways to break the gun lobby without passing laws.  Heh, heh, heh.


----------



## The Rabbi

Saigon said:


> Rabbi -
> 
> You are aware that black people do not all live in the US, right?



Are you trying to make some kind of point here?  All the American blacks I know about live in the US, except the few that emigrate.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi -
> 
> You are aware that black people do not all live in the US, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make some kind of point here? All the American blacks I know about live in the US, except the few that emigrate.
Click to expand...

 
Wow you did not understand him, did you?


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi -
> 
> You are aware that black people do not all live in the US, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make some kind of point here? All the American blacks I know about live in the US, except the few that emigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you did not understand him, did you?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't.  What difference does it make where black people live?


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make some kind of point here? All the American blacks I know about live in the US, except the few that emigrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you did not understand him, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't. What difference does it make where black people live?
Click to expand...


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you did not understand him, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't. What difference does it make where black people live?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No answer.

Maybe you didnt understand his question either.


----------



## varelse

blackhawk said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming Congress does not try to change that rule I put very little past them when it comes to pushing their own agenda.[/QUOTIt's not a rule, it's a constituyional enumeration.  The states would have to ratify it.  2/3'rds.  Capice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand perfectly what I am saying is don't underestimate the ability of Congress to find a way around that if they really want to.
Click to expand...


Historical precedent certainly seems to imply constitutional limitations on federal power mean little in practice.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?



Only a few seem to get it. semi automatic rifles are easy targets to try and ban. Semi automatic rifles are not used that much in the act of a crime compared to other standard type firearms such as shotguns.
Even Joe Biden said the assault weapon wasn't that effective of a firearm compared too a shotgun.
So gun owners that do not own any semi automatic rifles  Think about what you have such as your shotgun it may very well be the next victim on the anti gun attack list.


----------



## MDiver

Well, no matter what law they come up with, I'm heavily armed and have a great deal of ammunition.
As long as they don't show up at my doorstep to forcibly take anything away, no problem.  I'm no threat to anyone and never have been.  If however, they show up to demand I turn weapons or clips/magazines of any type over to them, with the threat of force if I don't comply, the gunfight begins.


----------



## jtpr312

Saigon said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ignorance or paranoia that drives some anti-gun nutters, or both?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not paranoia or ignorance to suggest that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations - it's a fact.
> 
> Until you guys start addressing points like this with a little honesty, you are not really going to get to the starting point of this issue.
Click to expand...


If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic.  According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?

UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here) 
Country Rate Count Region Subregion 
*Burundi 21.7 1,726 Africa Eastern Africa 
 Comoros 12.2 85 Africa Eastern Africa * Djibouti 3.4 29 Africa Eastern Africa 
*Eritrea 17.8 879 Africa Eastern Africa 
 Ethiopia 22.5 20,239 Africa Eastern Africa 
 Kenya 20.1 7,733 Africa Eastern Africa 
 Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Africa Eastern Africa * 
Mauritius 2.5 33 Africa Eastern Africa 
*Mozambique 8.8 1,925 Africa Eastern Africa 
 Rwanda 17.1 1,708 Africa Eastern Africa 
 Seychelles 8.3 7 Africa Eastern Africa * 
Somalia 1.5 138+ Africa Eastern Africa 
*Tanzania 24.5 10,357 Africa Eastern Africa 
 Zimbabwe 14.3 1,775 Africa Eastern Africa 
 Angola 19.0 3,426 Africa Middle Africa 
 Cameroon 19.7 3,700 Africa Middle Africa 
 Central African Republic 29.3 1,240 Africa Middle Africa 
 Chad 15.8 1,686 Africa Middle Africa 
 Congo 30.8 1,180 Africa Middle Africa 
 Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7 13,558 Africa Middle Africa * 
Equatorial Guinea 20.7 137 Africa Middle Africa 
*São Tomé and Príncipe 1.9 3 Africa Middle Africa 
 Gabon 13.8 200 Africa Middle Africa * 
Algeria 1.5 516 Africa Northern Africa 
 Egypt 1.2 992 Africa Northern Africa 
 Libya 2.9 176+ Africa Northern Africa 
 Morocco 1.4 447 Africa Northern Africa 
*Sudan 24.2 10,028++ Africa Northern Africa * 
Tunisia 1.1 117 Africa Northern Africa 
*Botswana 14.5 287 Africa Southern Africa 
 Lesotho 35.2 764 Africa Southern Africa 
 Namibia 17.2 352 Africa Southern Africa 
 South Africa 31.8 15,940 Africa Southern Africa 
 Swaziland 12.9 141 Africa Southern Africa 
 Benin 15.1 1,262 Africa Western Africa 
 Burkina Faso 18.0 2,876 Africa Western Africa 
 Cape Verde 11.6 56 Africa Western Africa 
 Côte d'Ivoire 56.9 10,801 Africa Western Africa 
 Gambia 10.8 106 Africa Western Africa 
 Ghana 15.7 3,646 Africa Western Africa 
 Guinea 22.5 2,152 Africa Western Africa 
 Guinea-Bissau 20.2 294 Africa Western Africa 
 Liberia 10.1 371 Africa Western Africa 
 Mali 8.0 1,157 Africa Western Africa 
 Mauritania 14.7 485 Africa Western Africa * 
Niger 3.8 552 Africa Western Africa 
*Nigeria 12.2 18,422 Africa Western Africa 
 Senegal 8.7 1,027 Africa Western Africa 
 Sierra Leone 14.9 837 Africa Western Africa 
 Togo 10.9 627 Africa Western Africa 
 Anguilla 6.8 1 Americas Caribbean 
 Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Americas Caribbean 
 Bahamas 27.4 94 Americas Caribbean 
 Barbados 11.3 31 Americas Caribbean 
 British Virgin Islands 8.6 2 Americas Caribbean 
 Cayman Islands 8.4 5 Americas Caribbean 
 Cuba 5.0 563 Americas Caribbean 
 Dominica 22.1 15 Americas Caribbean 
 Dominican Republic 25.0 2,513 Americas Caribbean 
 Grenada 11.5 12 Americas Caribbean 
 Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Americas Caribbean 
 Haiti 6.9 689 Americas Caribbean 
 Jamaica 52.2 1,430 Americas Caribbean * 
Martinique 4.2 17 Americas Caribbean 
*Montserrat 19.7 1 Americas Caribbean 
 Puerto Rico 26.2 983 Americas Caribbean 
 Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2 20 Americas Caribbean 
 Saint Lucia 25.2 44 Americas Caribbean 
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9 25 Americas Caribbean 
 Trinidad and Tobago 35.2 472 Americas Caribbean 
 Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7 3 Americas Caribbean 
 U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2 43 Americas Caribbean 
 Belize 41.4 129 Americas Central America 
 Costa Rica 10.0 474 Americas Central America 
 El Salvador 69.2 4,308 Americas Central America 
 Guatemala 38.5 5,681 Americas Central America 
 Honduras 91.6 7,104 Americas Central America 
 Mexico 22.7 25,757+ Americas Northern America 
 Nicaragua 13.6 785 Americas Central America 
 Panama 21.6 759 Americas Central America 
 Bermuda 12.3 8 Americas Northern America * Canada 1.6 554 Americas Northern America 
United States 4.8 14,748 Americas Northern America  
Argentina 3.4 1,360 Americas South America 
*Bolivia 8.9 884 Americas South America 
 Brazil 21.0 40,974 Americas South America * 
Chile 3.2 541 Americas South America 
*Colombia 31.0 14,670+[9] Americas South America 
 Ecuador 15.2 2,638 Americas South America 
 French Guiana 13.3 30 Americas South America 
 Guyana 18.6 140 Americas South America 
 Paraguay 11.5 741 Americas South America 
 Peru 10.3 2,969 Americas South America * 
Suriname 4.6 24 Americas South America 
*Uruguay 5.9 199 Americas South America 
 Venezuela 45.1 13,080 Americas South America 
 Kazakhstan 8.8 1,418 Asia Central Asia 
 Kyrgyzstan 20.1 1,072 Asia Central Asia * 
Tajikistan 2.1 143 Asia Central Asia 
 Turkmenistan 4.2 203 Asia Central Asia 
 Uzbekistan 3.1 831 Asia Central Asia 
 China 1.0 13,410 Asia Eastern Asia 
 Taiwan 3.2 743 Asia Eastern Asia 
*North Korea 15.2 3,658 Asia Eastern Asia * 
Hong Kong 0.2 17 Asia Eastern Asia 
 Japan 0.4 506 Asia Eastern Asia 
 Macau 0.7 4 Asia Eastern Asia 
*Mongolia 8.7 239 Asia Eastern Asia * 
South Korea 2.6 1,251 Asia Eastern Asia 
 Brunei 0.5 2 Asia South-Eastern Asia 
 Cambodia 3.4 448 Asia South-Eastern Asia 
* Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Asia South-Eastern Asia * 
Laos 4.6 279 Asia South-Eastern Asia 
 Malaysia 2.3 604 Asia South-Eastern Asia 
*Myanmar 10.2 4,800 Asia South-Eastern Asia 
 Philippines 5.4 4,947 Asia South-Eastern Asia * 
Singapore 0.3 16 Asia South-Eastern Asia 
 Thailand 4.8 3,307 Asia South-Eastern Asia 
*Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Asia South-Eastern Asia * 
Vietnam 1.6 1,346 Asia South-Eastern Asia 
 Afghanistan 2.4 712+ Asia Southern Asia 
 Bangladesh 2.7 3,988 Asia Southern Asia 
 Bhutan 1.0 7 Asia Southern Asia 
 India 3.4 40,752+ Asia Southern Asia 
 Iran 3.0 2,215 Asia Southern Asia 
 Maldives 1.6 5 Asia Southern Asia 
 Nepal 2.8 818 Asia Southern Asia 
*Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Asia Southern Asia * 
Sri Lanka 3.6 745 Asia Southern Asia 
 Armenia 1.4 44 Asia Western Asia 
 Azerbaijan 2.2 206 Asia Western Asia 
 Bahrain 0.6 6 Asia Western Asia 
 Cyprus 1.7 19 Asia Western Asia 
 Iraq 2.0 608+ Asia Western Asia 
 Israel 2.1 159+ Asia Western Asia 
 Jordan 1.8 100 Asia Western Asia 
 Kuwait 2.2 59 Asia Western Asia 
 Lebanon 2.2 95 Asia Western Asia 
 Palestine 4.1 145+ Asia Western Asia 
 Oman 0.7 18 Asia Western Asia 
 Qatar 0.9 13 Asia Western Asia 
 Saudi Arabia 1.0 265+ Asia Western Asia 
 Syria 2.3 463+ Asia Western Asia 
 Turkey 3.3 2,320 Asia Western Asia 
 United Arab Emirates 0.8 39 Asia Western Asia 
 Yemen 4.2 990+ Asia Western Asia 
*Belarus 4.9 473 Europe Eastern Europe * 
Bulgaria 2.0 147 Europe Eastern Europe 
 Czech Republic 1.7 181 Europe Eastern Europe 
 Georgia 4.3 187 Europe Eastern Europe 
 Hungary 1.3 133 Europe Eastern Europe 
 Poland 1.1 436 Europe Eastern Europe 
* Moldova 7.5 267 Europe Eastern Europe * 
Romania 2.0 421 Europe Eastern Europe 
*Russia 10.2 14,574 Europe Eastern Europe * 
Slovakia 1.5 84 Europe Eastern Europe 
*Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Europe Eastern Europe * 
Denmark 0.9 47 Europe Northern Europe 
* Estonia 5.2 70 Europe Northern Europe * 
Finland 2.2 118 Europe Northern Europe 
 Greenland 19.2 11 Europe Northern Europe 
 Iceland 0.3 1 Europe Northern Europe 
 Ireland 1.2 54 Europe Northern Europe 
 Latvia 3.1 70 Europe Northern Europe 
* Lithuania 6.6 219 Europe Northern Europe * 
Norway 0.6 29 Europe Northern Europe 
 Sweden 1.0 91 Europe Northern Europe 
 United Kingdom 1.2 722 Europe Northern Europe 
 Albania 4.0 127 Europe Southern Europe 
 Andorra 1.3 1 Europe Southern Europe 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.5 56 Europe Southern Europe 
 Croatia 1.4 62 Europe Southern Europe 
 Greece 1.5 176 Europe Southern Europe 
 Italy 0.9 529 Europe Southern Europe 
 Malta 1.0 4 Europe Southern Europe 
 Montenegro 3.5 22 Europe Southern Europe 
 Portugal 1.2 124 Europe Southern Europe 
 Serbia 1.2 123 Europe Southern Europe 
 Slovenia 0.7 15 Europe Southern Europe 
 Spain 0.8 390 Europe Southern Europe 
 Macedonia 1.9 40 Europe Southern Europe 
 Austria 0.6 56 Europe Western Europe 
 Belgium 1.7 180 Europe Western Europe 
 France 1.1 682 Europe Western Europe 
 Germany 0.8 690 Europe Western Europe 
 Liechtenstein 2.8 1 Europe Western Europe 
 Luxembourg 2.5 12 Europe Western Europe 
 Monaco 0.0 0 Europe Western Europe 
 Netherlands 1.1 179 Europe Western Europe 
 Switzerland 0.7 52 Europe Western Europe 
 Australia 1.0 229 Oceania Australasia 
 New Zealand 0.9 39 Oceania Australasia 
 Fiji 2.8 23 Oceania Melanesia 
*Papua New Guinea 13.0 854 Oceania Melanesia * 
Solomon Islands 3.7 19 Oceania Melanesia 
 Vanuatu 0.9 2 Oceania Melanesia 
 Guam 0.6 1 Oceania Micronesia 
*Kiribati 7.3 7 Oceania Micronesia * 
Federated States of Micronesia 0.9 1 Oceania Micronesia 
*Nauru 9.8 1 Oceania Micronesia * 
Palau 0.0 0 Oceania Micronesia 
 French Polynesia 0.4 1 Oceania Polynesia 
 Samoa 1.1 2 Oceania Polynesia 
 Tonga 1.0 1 Oceania Polynesia



http://UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)


----------



## jtpr312

Saigon said:


> The Rabbi -
> 
> That's not a terribly strong argument, is it?!
> 
> Again, Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations. By using laws similar to those in those 20 countries, the US could reduce its homicide rate massively.
> 
> When you are willing to address that point rather than run away from it, let me know.



Remove our minority murders and we're much lower than most other nations, leading me to believe with have a problem with negroes and hispanic gang bangers in this nation, not firearms.  You are also aware are you not, that most murders by gun shot are done with ILLEGALLY possesed firearms, and NOTHING the govt of any state or  the federal govt addresses this issue.  EVERY one of their controls is aimed at legal law abiding gun owners.  We have had a 100% ban on the possesion of, use of, manufacture of, importation of and sale of heroin, cocaine and meth in this nation for over 50yrs, yet the criminally minded are able to do all these things in EVERY city, town and suburb in the nation.  But the gun ban will keep criminals from getting guns huh?


----------



## UseCaution

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?



Prohibition did not make drinking illegal, and you could still make it at home.  And not diminishing drunk driving, it wasn't directed at this type of activities from alcohol use. As to inflicting death by use.  Prohibition was doomed to failure in the first place.  If I can still make it at home and drink it, what's the point anyway. Like the war on drugs, the war on pornography, they are failures.  As these three have the complications of religion being involved.  Outside of a law of complete banishment of assault weapons by civilians.  Again, this will be another failure, and a minor inconvenience.


----------



## UseCaution

Grandma said:


> Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from. It's not like having all hard alcohol and "good" beer removed and all we get is one brand of lite beer.
> 
> If the guns are banned, you can still keep the ones you have.
> 
> Does that mean only bad guys will get assualt rifles? Has it not occurred to anyone that if the guns are banned then gun manufacturers will stop making them? If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload? If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?



Before I can legally drive a car, I submit to a minimal background check.  Any responsible person would not be afraid of a background check on gun ownership.  And leave big government out of this. As assault weapons have limited use for that type of situation.  If from the cop standpoint making a house call and knowing at least one person was checked out for gun.  Would probably save that person's life, but every situation is different. 

My suggestion, is another approach.  To turn of the burden of responsibility to make them less attractive.  On assault weapons vs.  Small handguns etc.


----------



## asaratis

Snookie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically a republic but in most American's hearts it is a Democracy.
> 
> What you say looks good on paper but in reality it is meh.
> 
> God bless America.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why the Pledge of Allegiance ends with "to the Republic for which it stands."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big deal.  The pledge is not law.  der.
Click to expand...

Correct.  It is not law...but it does not say "to the democracy for which it stands."

Your density is exceeding great.


----------



## MaryL

OK, we repealed the 18th Amendment. That set a precedent, why cant we repeal the second amendment? I cant imagine how private gun ownership has helped ME feel free or be safe.  And people with guns harm our society. Perhaps its time to rethink the second amendment.


----------



## beagle9

52ndStreet said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WordsFromTheFoundingFathers:
> 
> The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
> - Samuel Adams
> 
> The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
> ~Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
> ~Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
> George Mason
> Co-author of the Second Amendment
> during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
> 
> "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence's and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
> George Washington
> First President of the United States
> 
> "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
> Thomas Paine
> 
> "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> Richard Henry Lee
> American Statesman, 1788
> 
> "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
> Patrick Henry
> American Patriot
> 
> "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
> Thomas Jefferson
> Third President of the United States
> 
> "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; "
> Thomas Jefferson
> letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
> 
> "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
> Alexander Hamilton
> The Federalist Papers at 184-8
> 
> "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
> 
> "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
> - John Adams
> 
> "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
> - Patrick Henry
> 
> 
> A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. ~George Washington
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real goal is to confiscate all weapons from American citizens, and people in the third world. So the United Nations can implement their New World order agenda on America, and the entire world. The United Nations has a small arms treaty coming up for ratification
> by the U.S. Senate.
> 
> They want to disarm people all over the entire Earth , so they more easily take over
> you, your property, and what ever else of value that you may have.
> This is what the New World Order is about.
> They don't want you to have an assault rilfe, or high capacity ammo clip, they don't want you to defend yourself properly.
> Its all been planned for many years now.
> We as Americans, can not allow it to happen.
Click to expand...

All it will do is make us weak, while the rest of the world stands there with their fingers crossed behind their backs. 

We are theeee power to be taken down in the worlds eyes for this new world order I imagine, as all the other large nations have suffered world wars on their soil more so than America has in their more recent past, and so they look at us now or in a sense, that it is our time now to suffer, especially as we weaken internally and outwardly in regards to our status that is being found here, and within in the world anymore.


----------



## UseCaution




----------



## UseCaution

asaratis said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why the Pledge of Allegiance ends with "to the Republic for which it stands."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big deal.  The pledge is not law.  der.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.  It is not law...but it does not say "to the democracy for which it stands."
> 
> Your density is exceeding great.
Click to expand...







Students pledging allegiance to the American flag with the Bellamy salute​





*this was a funny version!​*


----------



## varelse

asaratis said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why the Pledge of Allegiance ends with "to the Republic for which it stands."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big deal.  The pledge is not law.  der.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.  It is not law...but it does not say "to the democracy for which it stands."
> 
> Your density is exceeding great.
Click to expand...


I'd just like to highlight the following context:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (18551931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,[3] and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (18501898). The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.[4][5][6][7]

Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[8][9]

    I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Students swearing the Pledge on Flag Day in 1899

The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[7] but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance



MaryL said:


> OK, we repealed the 18th Amendment. That set a precedent, why cant we repeal the second amendment? I cant imagine how private gun ownership has helped ME feel free or be safe.  And people with guns harm our society. Perhaps its time to rethink the second amendment.



Why, exactly, do you think criminals- especially those who already aren't supposed to have firearms- will go along with this?


----------



## Snookie

asaratis said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why the Pledge of Allegiance ends with "to the Republic for which it stands."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big deal. The pledge is not law. der.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. It is not law...but it does not say "to the democracy for which it stands."
> 
> Your density is exceeding great.
Click to expand...

 

Another temper tantrum by a pro gunner. You all seem to have bad tempers, especially when someone offers an opinion different than yours. You then infer that they are stupid.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> OK, we repealed the 18th Amendment. That set a precedent, why cant we repeal the second amendment? I cant imagine how private gun ownership has helped ME feel free or be safe.  And people with guns harm our society. Perhaps its time to rethink the second amendment.



The 18th Amendment did not address a protected right, however; indeed, many perceived its repeal as liberating. 

Thats not the case with the Second Amendment.


----------



## PaulS1950

MaryL said:


> OK, we repealed the 18th Amendment. That set a precedent, why cant we repeal the second amendment? I cant imagine how private gun ownership has helped ME feel free or be safe.  And people with guns harm our society. Perhaps its time to rethink the second amendment.



Even if you were successful in repealing the second amendment it would not do away with the right to keep and bear arms. The ninth amendment provides for the protection of the rights not enumerated in the bill of rights. The right to self defense, the right to keep and bear arms and ythe right to be secure in your person all tie together different aspects of personal defense. They are natural rights of birth. Whether you use "G_d given" or "natural" to define the origin of those rights the history of the right to keep and bear arms extends far deeper in history that the second amendment. We are born with a right to defend ourselves and our belongings. The only way to do that is to have weapons that are modern and up to date and at least as formidable as those carried by those who confront us.


----------



## UseCaution

varelse said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big deal.  The pledge is not law.  der.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  It is not law...but it does not say "to the democracy for which it stands."
> 
> Your density is exceeding great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd just like to highlight the following context:
> 
> The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (18551931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,[3] and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (18501898). The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.[4][5][6][7]
> 
> Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[8][9]
> 
> I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
> 
> Students swearing the Pledge on Flag Day in 1899
> 
> The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[7] but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.[10]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, we repealed the 18th Amendment. That set a precedent, why cant we repeal the second amendment? I cant imagine how private gun ownership has helped ME feel free or be safe.  And people with guns harm our society. Perhaps its time to rethink the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, exactly, do you think criminals- especially those who already aren't supposed to have firearms- will go along with this?
Click to expand...


And the last context:
"Bellamy salute occurred on December 22, 1942, when Congress amended the Flag Code language first passed into law on June 22, 1942." that little nazi thing was an issue.


----------



## candycorn

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?



It's a terrible idea that won't work.  What you do is increase the taxes on the purchase and harboring of the items to make it unappealing.


----------



## The Rabbi

candycorn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible idea that won't work.  What you do is increase the taxes on the purchase and harboring of the items to make it unappealing.
Click to expand...


How will that help reduce violence of any kind?


----------



## martybegan

candycorn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible idea that won't work.  What you do is increase the taxes on the purchase and harboring of the items to make it unappealing.
Click to expand...


So basically you price poor people out of the ability to protect themselves.

How progressive.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grandma said:


> Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from.


Similary, we can ban Islam because you can still be a Jew.



> Does that mean only bad guys will get assualt rifles? Has it not occurred to anyone that if the guns are banned then gun manufacturers will stop making them?


Like in 1994-2004, the manufacturers will modify their designs to comply with the law and continue build them.

If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload?
No.   Criminals, as buyers or sellers, will not submit to background checks.



> If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?


Only under limited circumstances.
it will, however, cost a number of gunowerns their lives as they will not have timely enough acess to their guns.


----------



## The Rabbi

D.C. required guns disassembled in the safe.  First, it didnt reduce crime.  Second, it was declared unconstitutional by the USSC.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MaryL said:


> OK, we repealed the 18th Amendment. That set a precedent, why cant we repeal the second amendment?


Because you'll never get the votes necessary.



> I cant imagine how private gun ownership has helped ME feel free or be safe.


And that's enough to justify taking away the rights of the law abiding?


----------



## Spoonman

Grandma said:


> Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from. It's not like having all hard alcohol and "good" beer removed and all we get is one brand of lite beer.
> 
> If the guns are banned, you can still keep the ones you have.
> 
> Does that mean only bad guys will get assualt rifles? Has it not occurred to anyone that if the guns are banned then gun manufacturers will stop making them? If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload? If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?



How about we ban certain types of speech, or certain religions?  or maybe only certain types of men were created equal.


----------



## Spoonman

We could always ban guns like brazil, which has a higher homicide rate from guns then we do.


----------



## M14 Shooter

UseCaution said:


> Before I can legally drive a car, I submit to a minimal background check.


But, not to buy a car, own a car, keep a car in your garage, or use it on private property.



> Any responsible person would not be afraid of a background check on gun ownership.


Nor should they be afraid of the government monitoring their e-mails, bank accounts and cell conversations.



> And leave big government out of this.


Big government is the force behind it.



> As assault weapons have limited use for that type of situation.


'Assault weapons' are suitable for any legal purpose one might have for a gun.



> My suggestion, is another approach.  To turn of the burden of responsibility to make them less attractive.  On assault weapons vs.  Small handguns etc.


Not sure what this is supposed to mean.


----------



## Underhill

jtpr312 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ignorance or paranoia that drives some anti-gun nutters, or both?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not paranoia or ignorance to suggest that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations - it's a fact.
> 
> Until you guys start addressing points like this with a little honesty, you are not really going to get to the starting point of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic.  According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?
> 
> UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> Country Rate Count Region Subregion
> *Burundi 21.7 1,726 Africa Eastern Africa
> Comoros 12.2 85 Africa Eastern Africa * Djibouti 3.4 29 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Eritrea 17.8 879 Africa Eastern Africa
> Ethiopia 22.5 20,239 Africa Eastern Africa
> Kenya 20.1 7,733 Africa Eastern Africa
> Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Mauritius 2.5 33 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Mozambique 8.8 1,925 Africa Eastern Africa
> Rwanda 17.1 1,708 Africa Eastern Africa
> Seychelles 8.3 7 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Somalia 1.5 138+ Africa Eastern Africa
> *Tanzania 24.5 10,357 Africa Eastern Africa
> Zimbabwe 14.3 1,775 Africa Eastern Africa
> Angola 19.0 3,426 Africa Middle Africa
> Cameroon 19.7 3,700 Africa Middle Africa
> Central African Republic 29.3 1,240 Africa Middle Africa
> Chad 15.8 1,686 Africa Middle Africa
> Congo 30.8 1,180 Africa Middle Africa
> Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7 13,558 Africa Middle Africa *
> Equatorial Guinea 20.7 137 Africa Middle Africa
> *São Tomé and Príncipe 1.9 3 Africa Middle Africa
> Gabon 13.8 200 Africa Middle Africa *
> Algeria 1.5 516 Africa Northern Africa
> Egypt 1.2 992 Africa Northern Africa
> Libya 2.9 176+ Africa Northern Africa
> Morocco 1.4 447 Africa Northern Africa
> *Sudan 24.2 10,028++ Africa Northern Africa *
> Tunisia 1.1 117 Africa Northern Africa
> *Botswana 14.5 287 Africa Southern Africa
> Lesotho 35.2 764 Africa Southern Africa
> Namibia 17.2 352 Africa Southern Africa
> South Africa 31.8 15,940 Africa Southern Africa
> Swaziland 12.9 141 Africa Southern Africa
> Benin 15.1 1,262 Africa Western Africa
> Burkina Faso 18.0 2,876 Africa Western Africa
> Cape Verde 11.6 56 Africa Western Africa
> Côte d'Ivoire 56.9 10,801 Africa Western Africa
> Gambia 10.8 106 Africa Western Africa
> Ghana 15.7 3,646 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea 22.5 2,152 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea-Bissau 20.2 294 Africa Western Africa
> Liberia 10.1 371 Africa Western Africa
> Mali 8.0 1,157 Africa Western Africa
> Mauritania 14.7 485 Africa Western Africa *
> Niger 3.8 552 Africa Western Africa
> *Nigeria 12.2 18,422 Africa Western Africa
> Senegal 8.7 1,027 Africa Western Africa
> Sierra Leone 14.9 837 Africa Western Africa
> Togo 10.9 627 Africa Western Africa
> Anguilla 6.8 1 Americas Caribbean
> Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Americas Caribbean
> Bahamas 27.4 94 Americas Caribbean
> Barbados 11.3 31 Americas Caribbean
> British Virgin Islands 8.6 2 Americas Caribbean
> Cayman Islands 8.4 5 Americas Caribbean
> Cuba 5.0 563 Americas Caribbean
> Dominica 22.1 15 Americas Caribbean
> Dominican Republic 25.0 2,513 Americas Caribbean
> Grenada 11.5 12 Americas Caribbean
> Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Americas Caribbean
> Haiti 6.9 689 Americas Caribbean
> Jamaica 52.2 1,430 Americas Caribbean *
> Martinique 4.2 17 Americas Caribbean
> *Montserrat 19.7 1 Americas Caribbean
> Puerto Rico 26.2 983 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2 20 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Lucia 25.2 44 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9 25 Americas Caribbean
> Trinidad and Tobago 35.2 472 Americas Caribbean
> Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7 3 Americas Caribbean
> U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2 43 Americas Caribbean
> Belize 41.4 129 Americas Central America
> Costa Rica 10.0 474 Americas Central America
> El Salvador 69.2 4,308 Americas Central America
> Guatemala 38.5 5,681 Americas Central America
> Honduras 91.6 7,104 Americas Central America
> Mexico 22.7 25,757+ Americas Northern America
> Nicaragua 13.6 785 Americas Central America
> Panama 21.6 759 Americas Central America
> Bermuda 12.3 8 Americas Northern America * Canada 1.6 554 Americas Northern America
> United States 4.8 14,748 Americas Northern America
> Argentina 3.4 1,360 Americas South America
> *Bolivia 8.9 884 Americas South America
> Brazil 21.0 40,974 Americas South America *
> Chile 3.2 541 Americas South America
> *Colombia 31.0 14,670+[9] Americas South America
> Ecuador 15.2 2,638 Americas South America
> French Guiana 13.3 30 Americas South America
> Guyana 18.6 140 Americas South America
> Paraguay 11.5 741 Americas South America
> Peru 10.3 2,969 Americas South America *
> Suriname 4.6 24 Americas South America
> *Uruguay 5.9 199 Americas South America
> Venezuela 45.1 13,080 Americas South America
> Kazakhstan 8.8 1,418 Asia Central Asia
> Kyrgyzstan 20.1 1,072 Asia Central Asia *
> Tajikistan 2.1 143 Asia Central Asia
> Turkmenistan 4.2 203 Asia Central Asia
> Uzbekistan 3.1 831 Asia Central Asia
> China 1.0 13,410 Asia Eastern Asia
> Taiwan 3.2 743 Asia Eastern Asia
> *North Korea 15.2 3,658 Asia Eastern Asia *
> Hong Kong 0.2 17 Asia Eastern Asia
> Japan 0.4 506 Asia Eastern Asia
> Macau 0.7 4 Asia Eastern Asia
> *Mongolia 8.7 239 Asia Eastern Asia *
> South Korea 2.6 1,251 Asia Eastern Asia
> Brunei 0.5 2 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Cambodia 3.4 448 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> * Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Laos 4.6 279 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Malaysia 2.3 604 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Myanmar 10.2 4,800 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Philippines 5.4 4,947 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Singapore 0.3 16 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Thailand 4.8 3,307 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Vietnam 1.6 1,346 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Afghanistan 2.4 712+ Asia Southern Asia
> Bangladesh 2.7 3,988 Asia Southern Asia
> Bhutan 1.0 7 Asia Southern Asia
> India 3.4 40,752+ Asia Southern Asia
> Iran 3.0 2,215 Asia Southern Asia
> Maldives 1.6 5 Asia Southern Asia
> Nepal 2.8 818 Asia Southern Asia
> *Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Asia Southern Asia *
> Sri Lanka 3.6 745 Asia Southern Asia
> Armenia 1.4 44 Asia Western Asia
> Azerbaijan 2.2 206 Asia Western Asia
> Bahrain 0.6 6 Asia Western Asia
> Cyprus 1.7 19 Asia Western Asia
> Iraq 2.0 608+ Asia Western Asia
> Israel 2.1 159+ Asia Western Asia
> Jordan 1.8 100 Asia Western Asia
> Kuwait 2.2 59 Asia Western Asia
> Lebanon 2.2 95 Asia Western Asia
> Palestine 4.1 145+ Asia Western Asia
> Oman 0.7 18 Asia Western Asia
> Qatar 0.9 13 Asia Western Asia
> Saudi Arabia 1.0 265+ Asia Western Asia
> Syria 2.3 463+ Asia Western Asia
> Turkey 3.3 2,320 Asia Western Asia
> United Arab Emirates 0.8 39 Asia Western Asia
> Yemen 4.2 990+ Asia Western Asia
> *Belarus 4.9 473 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Bulgaria 2.0 147 Europe Eastern Europe
> Czech Republic 1.7 181 Europe Eastern Europe
> Georgia 4.3 187 Europe Eastern Europe
> Hungary 1.3 133 Europe Eastern Europe
> Poland 1.1 436 Europe Eastern Europe
> * Moldova 7.5 267 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Romania 2.0 421 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Russia 10.2 14,574 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Slovakia 1.5 84 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Denmark 0.9 47 Europe Northern Europe
> * Estonia 5.2 70 Europe Northern Europe *
> Finland 2.2 118 Europe Northern Europe
> Greenland 19.2 11 Europe Northern Europe
> Iceland 0.3 1 Europe Northern Europe
> Ireland 1.2 54 Europe Northern Europe
> Latvia 3.1 70 Europe Northern Europe
> * Lithuania 6.6 219 Europe Northern Europe *
> Norway 0.6 29 Europe Northern Europe
> Sweden 1.0 91 Europe Northern Europe
> United Kingdom 1.2 722 Europe Northern Europe
> Albania 4.0 127 Europe Southern Europe
> Andorra 1.3 1 Europe Southern Europe
> Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.5 56 Europe Southern Europe
> Croatia 1.4 62 Europe Southern Europe
> Greece 1.5 176 Europe Southern Europe
> Italy 0.9 529 Europe Southern Europe
> Malta 1.0 4 Europe Southern Europe
> Montenegro 3.5 22 Europe Southern Europe
> Portugal 1.2 124 Europe Southern Europe
> Serbia 1.2 123 Europe Southern Europe
> Slovenia 0.7 15 Europe Southern Europe
> Spain 0.8 390 Europe Southern Europe
> Macedonia 1.9 40 Europe Southern Europe
> Austria 0.6 56 Europe Western Europe
> Belgium 1.7 180 Europe Western Europe
> France 1.1 682 Europe Western Europe
> Germany 0.8 690 Europe Western Europe
> Liechtenstein 2.8 1 Europe Western Europe
> Luxembourg 2.5 12 Europe Western Europe
> Monaco 0.0 0 Europe Western Europe
> Netherlands 1.1 179 Europe Western Europe
> Switzerland 0.7 52 Europe Western Europe
> Australia 1.0 229 Oceania Australasia
> New Zealand 0.9 39 Oceania Australasia
> Fiji 2.8 23 Oceania Melanesia
> *Papua New Guinea 13.0 854 Oceania Melanesia *
> Solomon Islands 3.7 19 Oceania Melanesia
> Vanuatu 0.9 2 Oceania Melanesia
> Guam 0.6 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Kiribati 7.3 7 Oceania Micronesia *
> Federated States of Micronesia 0.9 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Nauru 9.8 1 Oceania Micronesia *
> Palau 0.0 0 Oceania Micronesia
> French Polynesia 0.4 1 Oceania Polynesia
> Samoa 1.1 2 Oceania Polynesia
> Tonga 1.0 1 Oceania Polynesia
> 
> 
> 
> http://UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
Click to expand...


I get your point.   

On the other hand it strikes me, looking at the list, that most all of those countries with higher rates than ours are 2nd and 3rd world countries....


----------



## Spoonman

Underhill said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not paranoia or ignorance to suggest that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations - it's a fact.
> 
> Until you guys start addressing points like this with a little honesty, you are not really going to get to the starting point of this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic.  According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?
> 
> UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> Country Rate Count Region Subregion
> *Burundi 21.7 1,726 Africa Eastern Africa
> Comoros 12.2 85 Africa Eastern Africa * Djibouti 3.4 29 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Eritrea 17.8 879 Africa Eastern Africa
> Ethiopia 22.5 20,239 Africa Eastern Africa
> Kenya 20.1 7,733 Africa Eastern Africa
> Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Mauritius 2.5 33 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Mozambique 8.8 1,925 Africa Eastern Africa
> Rwanda 17.1 1,708 Africa Eastern Africa
> Seychelles 8.3 7 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Somalia 1.5 138+ Africa Eastern Africa
> *Tanzania 24.5 10,357 Africa Eastern Africa
> Zimbabwe 14.3 1,775 Africa Eastern Africa
> Angola 19.0 3,426 Africa Middle Africa
> Cameroon 19.7 3,700 Africa Middle Africa
> Central African Republic 29.3 1,240 Africa Middle Africa
> Chad 15.8 1,686 Africa Middle Africa
> Congo 30.8 1,180 Africa Middle Africa
> Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7 13,558 Africa Middle Africa *
> Equatorial Guinea 20.7 137 Africa Middle Africa
> *São Tomé and Príncipe 1.9 3 Africa Middle Africa
> Gabon 13.8 200 Africa Middle Africa *
> Algeria 1.5 516 Africa Northern Africa
> Egypt 1.2 992 Africa Northern Africa
> Libya 2.9 176+ Africa Northern Africa
> Morocco 1.4 447 Africa Northern Africa
> *Sudan 24.2 10,028++ Africa Northern Africa *
> Tunisia 1.1 117 Africa Northern Africa
> *Botswana 14.5 287 Africa Southern Africa
> Lesotho 35.2 764 Africa Southern Africa
> Namibia 17.2 352 Africa Southern Africa
> South Africa 31.8 15,940 Africa Southern Africa
> Swaziland 12.9 141 Africa Southern Africa
> Benin 15.1 1,262 Africa Western Africa
> Burkina Faso 18.0 2,876 Africa Western Africa
> Cape Verde 11.6 56 Africa Western Africa
> Côte d'Ivoire 56.9 10,801 Africa Western Africa
> Gambia 10.8 106 Africa Western Africa
> Ghana 15.7 3,646 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea 22.5 2,152 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea-Bissau 20.2 294 Africa Western Africa
> Liberia 10.1 371 Africa Western Africa
> Mali 8.0 1,157 Africa Western Africa
> Mauritania 14.7 485 Africa Western Africa *
> Niger 3.8 552 Africa Western Africa
> *Nigeria 12.2 18,422 Africa Western Africa
> Senegal 8.7 1,027 Africa Western Africa
> Sierra Leone 14.9 837 Africa Western Africa
> Togo 10.9 627 Africa Western Africa
> Anguilla 6.8 1 Americas Caribbean
> Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Americas Caribbean
> Bahamas 27.4 94 Americas Caribbean
> Barbados 11.3 31 Americas Caribbean
> British Virgin Islands 8.6 2 Americas Caribbean
> Cayman Islands 8.4 5 Americas Caribbean
> Cuba 5.0 563 Americas Caribbean
> Dominica 22.1 15 Americas Caribbean
> Dominican Republic 25.0 2,513 Americas Caribbean
> Grenada 11.5 12 Americas Caribbean
> Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Americas Caribbean
> Haiti 6.9 689 Americas Caribbean
> Jamaica 52.2 1,430 Americas Caribbean *
> Martinique 4.2 17 Americas Caribbean
> *Montserrat 19.7 1 Americas Caribbean
> Puerto Rico 26.2 983 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2 20 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Lucia 25.2 44 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9 25 Americas Caribbean
> Trinidad and Tobago 35.2 472 Americas Caribbean
> Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7 3 Americas Caribbean
> U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2 43 Americas Caribbean
> Belize 41.4 129 Americas Central America
> Costa Rica 10.0 474 Americas Central America
> El Salvador 69.2 4,308 Americas Central America
> Guatemala 38.5 5,681 Americas Central America
> Honduras 91.6 7,104 Americas Central America
> Mexico 22.7 25,757+ Americas Northern America
> Nicaragua 13.6 785 Americas Central America
> Panama 21.6 759 Americas Central America
> Bermuda 12.3 8 Americas Northern America * Canada 1.6 554 Americas Northern America
> United States 4.8 14,748 Americas Northern America
> Argentina 3.4 1,360 Americas South America
> *Bolivia 8.9 884 Americas South America
> Brazil 21.0 40,974 Americas South America *
> Chile 3.2 541 Americas South America
> *Colombia 31.0 14,670+[9] Americas South America
> Ecuador 15.2 2,638 Americas South America
> French Guiana 13.3 30 Americas South America
> Guyana 18.6 140 Americas South America
> Paraguay 11.5 741 Americas South America
> Peru 10.3 2,969 Americas South America *
> Suriname 4.6 24 Americas South America
> *Uruguay 5.9 199 Americas South America
> Venezuela 45.1 13,080 Americas South America
> Kazakhstan 8.8 1,418 Asia Central Asia
> Kyrgyzstan 20.1 1,072 Asia Central Asia *
> Tajikistan 2.1 143 Asia Central Asia
> Turkmenistan 4.2 203 Asia Central Asia
> Uzbekistan 3.1 831 Asia Central Asia
> China 1.0 13,410 Asia Eastern Asia
> Taiwan 3.2 743 Asia Eastern Asia
> *North Korea 15.2 3,658 Asia Eastern Asia *
> Hong Kong 0.2 17 Asia Eastern Asia
> Japan 0.4 506 Asia Eastern Asia
> Macau 0.7 4 Asia Eastern Asia
> *Mongolia 8.7 239 Asia Eastern Asia *
> South Korea 2.6 1,251 Asia Eastern Asia
> Brunei 0.5 2 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Cambodia 3.4 448 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> * Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Laos 4.6 279 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Malaysia 2.3 604 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Myanmar 10.2 4,800 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Philippines 5.4 4,947 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Singapore 0.3 16 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Thailand 4.8 3,307 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Vietnam 1.6 1,346 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Afghanistan 2.4 712+ Asia Southern Asia
> Bangladesh 2.7 3,988 Asia Southern Asia
> Bhutan 1.0 7 Asia Southern Asia
> India 3.4 40,752+ Asia Southern Asia
> Iran 3.0 2,215 Asia Southern Asia
> Maldives 1.6 5 Asia Southern Asia
> Nepal 2.8 818 Asia Southern Asia
> *Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Asia Southern Asia *
> Sri Lanka 3.6 745 Asia Southern Asia
> Armenia 1.4 44 Asia Western Asia
> Azerbaijan 2.2 206 Asia Western Asia
> Bahrain 0.6 6 Asia Western Asia
> Cyprus 1.7 19 Asia Western Asia
> Iraq 2.0 608+ Asia Western Asia
> Israel 2.1 159+ Asia Western Asia
> Jordan 1.8 100 Asia Western Asia
> Kuwait 2.2 59 Asia Western Asia
> Lebanon 2.2 95 Asia Western Asia
> Palestine 4.1 145+ Asia Western Asia
> Oman 0.7 18 Asia Western Asia
> Qatar 0.9 13 Asia Western Asia
> Saudi Arabia 1.0 265+ Asia Western Asia
> Syria 2.3 463+ Asia Western Asia
> Turkey 3.3 2,320 Asia Western Asia
> United Arab Emirates 0.8 39 Asia Western Asia
> Yemen 4.2 990+ Asia Western Asia
> *Belarus 4.9 473 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Bulgaria 2.0 147 Europe Eastern Europe
> Czech Republic 1.7 181 Europe Eastern Europe
> Georgia 4.3 187 Europe Eastern Europe
> Hungary 1.3 133 Europe Eastern Europe
> Poland 1.1 436 Europe Eastern Europe
> * Moldova 7.5 267 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Romania 2.0 421 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Russia 10.2 14,574 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Slovakia 1.5 84 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Denmark 0.9 47 Europe Northern Europe
> * Estonia 5.2 70 Europe Northern Europe *
> Finland 2.2 118 Europe Northern Europe
> Greenland 19.2 11 Europe Northern Europe
> Iceland 0.3 1 Europe Northern Europe
> Ireland 1.2 54 Europe Northern Europe
> Latvia 3.1 70 Europe Northern Europe
> * Lithuania 6.6 219 Europe Northern Europe *
> Norway 0.6 29 Europe Northern Europe
> Sweden 1.0 91 Europe Northern Europe
> United Kingdom 1.2 722 Europe Northern Europe
> Albania 4.0 127 Europe Southern Europe
> Andorra 1.3 1 Europe Southern Europe
> Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.5 56 Europe Southern Europe
> Croatia 1.4 62 Europe Southern Europe
> Greece 1.5 176 Europe Southern Europe
> Italy 0.9 529 Europe Southern Europe
> Malta 1.0 4 Europe Southern Europe
> Montenegro 3.5 22 Europe Southern Europe
> Portugal 1.2 124 Europe Southern Europe
> Serbia 1.2 123 Europe Southern Europe
> Slovenia 0.7 15 Europe Southern Europe
> Spain 0.8 390 Europe Southern Europe
> Macedonia 1.9 40 Europe Southern Europe
> Austria 0.6 56 Europe Western Europe
> Belgium 1.7 180 Europe Western Europe
> France 1.1 682 Europe Western Europe
> Germany 0.8 690 Europe Western Europe
> Liechtenstein 2.8 1 Europe Western Europe
> Luxembourg 2.5 12 Europe Western Europe
> Monaco 0.0 0 Europe Western Europe
> Netherlands 1.1 179 Europe Western Europe
> Switzerland 0.7 52 Europe Western Europe
> Australia 1.0 229 Oceania Australasia
> New Zealand 0.9 39 Oceania Australasia
> Fiji 2.8 23 Oceania Melanesia
> *Papua New Guinea 13.0 854 Oceania Melanesia *
> Solomon Islands 3.7 19 Oceania Melanesia
> Vanuatu 0.9 2 Oceania Melanesia
> Guam 0.6 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Kiribati 7.3 7 Oceania Micronesia *
> Federated States of Micronesia 0.9 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Nauru 9.8 1 Oceania Micronesia *
> Palau 0.0 0 Oceania Micronesia
> French Polynesia 0.4 1 Oceania Polynesia
> Samoa 1.1 2 Oceania Polynesia
> Tonga 1.0 1 Oceania Polynesia
> 
> 
> 
> http://UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get your point.
> 
> On the other hand it strikes me, looking at the list, that most all of those countries with higher rates than ours are 2nd and 3rd world countries....
Click to expand...


half the population of the US is from those countries now


----------



## Underhill

Spoonman said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic.  According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?
> 
> UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> Country Rate Count Region Subregion
> *Burundi 21.7 1,726 Africa Eastern Africa
> Comoros 12.2 85 Africa Eastern Africa * Djibouti 3.4 29 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Eritrea 17.8 879 Africa Eastern Africa
> Ethiopia 22.5 20,239 Africa Eastern Africa
> Kenya 20.1 7,733 Africa Eastern Africa
> Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Mauritius 2.5 33 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Mozambique 8.8 1,925 Africa Eastern Africa
> Rwanda 17.1 1,708 Africa Eastern Africa
> Seychelles 8.3 7 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Somalia 1.5 138+ Africa Eastern Africa
> *Tanzania 24.5 10,357 Africa Eastern Africa
> Zimbabwe 14.3 1,775 Africa Eastern Africa
> Angola 19.0 3,426 Africa Middle Africa
> Cameroon 19.7 3,700 Africa Middle Africa
> Central African Republic 29.3 1,240 Africa Middle Africa
> Chad 15.8 1,686 Africa Middle Africa
> Congo 30.8 1,180 Africa Middle Africa
> Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7 13,558 Africa Middle Africa *
> Equatorial Guinea 20.7 137 Africa Middle Africa
> *São Tomé and Príncipe 1.9 3 Africa Middle Africa
> Gabon 13.8 200 Africa Middle Africa *
> Algeria 1.5 516 Africa Northern Africa
> Egypt 1.2 992 Africa Northern Africa
> Libya 2.9 176+ Africa Northern Africa
> Morocco 1.4 447 Africa Northern Africa
> *Sudan 24.2 10,028++ Africa Northern Africa *
> Tunisia 1.1 117 Africa Northern Africa
> *Botswana 14.5 287 Africa Southern Africa
> Lesotho 35.2 764 Africa Southern Africa
> Namibia 17.2 352 Africa Southern Africa
> South Africa 31.8 15,940 Africa Southern Africa
> Swaziland 12.9 141 Africa Southern Africa
> Benin 15.1 1,262 Africa Western Africa
> Burkina Faso 18.0 2,876 Africa Western Africa
> Cape Verde 11.6 56 Africa Western Africa
> Côte d'Ivoire 56.9 10,801 Africa Western Africa
> Gambia 10.8 106 Africa Western Africa
> Ghana 15.7 3,646 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea 22.5 2,152 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea-Bissau 20.2 294 Africa Western Africa
> Liberia 10.1 371 Africa Western Africa
> Mali 8.0 1,157 Africa Western Africa
> Mauritania 14.7 485 Africa Western Africa *
> Niger 3.8 552 Africa Western Africa
> *Nigeria 12.2 18,422 Africa Western Africa
> Senegal 8.7 1,027 Africa Western Africa
> Sierra Leone 14.9 837 Africa Western Africa
> Togo 10.9 627 Africa Western Africa
> Anguilla 6.8 1 Americas Caribbean
> Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Americas Caribbean
> Bahamas 27.4 94 Americas Caribbean
> Barbados 11.3 31 Americas Caribbean
> British Virgin Islands 8.6 2 Americas Caribbean
> Cayman Islands 8.4 5 Americas Caribbean
> Cuba 5.0 563 Americas Caribbean
> Dominica 22.1 15 Americas Caribbean
> Dominican Republic 25.0 2,513 Americas Caribbean
> Grenada 11.5 12 Americas Caribbean
> Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Americas Caribbean
> Haiti 6.9 689 Americas Caribbean
> Jamaica 52.2 1,430 Americas Caribbean *
> Martinique 4.2 17 Americas Caribbean
> *Montserrat 19.7 1 Americas Caribbean
> Puerto Rico 26.2 983 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2 20 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Lucia 25.2 44 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9 25 Americas Caribbean
> Trinidad and Tobago 35.2 472 Americas Caribbean
> Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7 3 Americas Caribbean
> U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2 43 Americas Caribbean
> Belize 41.4 129 Americas Central America
> Costa Rica 10.0 474 Americas Central America
> El Salvador 69.2 4,308 Americas Central America
> Guatemala 38.5 5,681 Americas Central America
> Honduras 91.6 7,104 Americas Central America
> Mexico 22.7 25,757+ Americas Northern America
> Nicaragua 13.6 785 Americas Central America
> Panama 21.6 759 Americas Central America
> Bermuda 12.3 8 Americas Northern America * Canada 1.6 554 Americas Northern America
> United States 4.8 14,748 Americas Northern America
> Argentina 3.4 1,360 Americas South America
> *Bolivia 8.9 884 Americas South America
> Brazil 21.0 40,974 Americas South America *
> Chile 3.2 541 Americas South America
> *Colombia 31.0 14,670+[9] Americas South America
> Ecuador 15.2 2,638 Americas South America
> French Guiana 13.3 30 Americas South America
> Guyana 18.6 140 Americas South America
> Paraguay 11.5 741 Americas South America
> Peru 10.3 2,969 Americas South America *
> Suriname 4.6 24 Americas South America
> *Uruguay 5.9 199 Americas South America
> Venezuela 45.1 13,080 Americas South America
> Kazakhstan 8.8 1,418 Asia Central Asia
> Kyrgyzstan 20.1 1,072 Asia Central Asia *
> Tajikistan 2.1 143 Asia Central Asia
> Turkmenistan 4.2 203 Asia Central Asia
> Uzbekistan 3.1 831 Asia Central Asia
> China 1.0 13,410 Asia Eastern Asia
> Taiwan 3.2 743 Asia Eastern Asia
> *North Korea 15.2 3,658 Asia Eastern Asia *
> Hong Kong 0.2 17 Asia Eastern Asia
> Japan 0.4 506 Asia Eastern Asia
> Macau 0.7 4 Asia Eastern Asia
> *Mongolia 8.7 239 Asia Eastern Asia *
> South Korea 2.6 1,251 Asia Eastern Asia
> Brunei 0.5 2 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Cambodia 3.4 448 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> * Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Laos 4.6 279 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Malaysia 2.3 604 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Myanmar 10.2 4,800 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Philippines 5.4 4,947 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Singapore 0.3 16 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Thailand 4.8 3,307 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Vietnam 1.6 1,346 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Afghanistan 2.4 712+ Asia Southern Asia
> Bangladesh 2.7 3,988 Asia Southern Asia
> Bhutan 1.0 7 Asia Southern Asia
> India 3.4 40,752+ Asia Southern Asia
> Iran 3.0 2,215 Asia Southern Asia
> Maldives 1.6 5 Asia Southern Asia
> Nepal 2.8 818 Asia Southern Asia
> *Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Asia Southern Asia *
> Sri Lanka 3.6 745 Asia Southern Asia
> Armenia 1.4 44 Asia Western Asia
> Azerbaijan 2.2 206 Asia Western Asia
> Bahrain 0.6 6 Asia Western Asia
> Cyprus 1.7 19 Asia Western Asia
> Iraq 2.0 608+ Asia Western Asia
> Israel 2.1 159+ Asia Western Asia
> Jordan 1.8 100 Asia Western Asia
> Kuwait 2.2 59 Asia Western Asia
> Lebanon 2.2 95 Asia Western Asia
> Palestine 4.1 145+ Asia Western Asia
> Oman 0.7 18 Asia Western Asia
> Qatar 0.9 13 Asia Western Asia
> Saudi Arabia 1.0 265+ Asia Western Asia
> Syria 2.3 463+ Asia Western Asia
> Turkey 3.3 2,320 Asia Western Asia
> United Arab Emirates 0.8 39 Asia Western Asia
> Yemen 4.2 990+ Asia Western Asia
> *Belarus 4.9 473 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Bulgaria 2.0 147 Europe Eastern Europe
> Czech Republic 1.7 181 Europe Eastern Europe
> Georgia 4.3 187 Europe Eastern Europe
> Hungary 1.3 133 Europe Eastern Europe
> Poland 1.1 436 Europe Eastern Europe
> * Moldova 7.5 267 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Romania 2.0 421 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Russia 10.2 14,574 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Slovakia 1.5 84 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Denmark 0.9 47 Europe Northern Europe
> * Estonia 5.2 70 Europe Northern Europe *
> Finland 2.2 118 Europe Northern Europe
> Greenland 19.2 11 Europe Northern Europe
> Iceland 0.3 1 Europe Northern Europe
> Ireland 1.2 54 Europe Northern Europe
> Latvia 3.1 70 Europe Northern Europe
> * Lithuania 6.6 219 Europe Northern Europe *
> Norway 0.6 29 Europe Northern Europe
> Sweden 1.0 91 Europe Northern Europe
> United Kingdom 1.2 722 Europe Northern Europe
> Albania 4.0 127 Europe Southern Europe
> Andorra 1.3 1 Europe Southern Europe
> Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.5 56 Europe Southern Europe
> Croatia 1.4 62 Europe Southern Europe
> Greece 1.5 176 Europe Southern Europe
> Italy 0.9 529 Europe Southern Europe
> Malta 1.0 4 Europe Southern Europe
> Montenegro 3.5 22 Europe Southern Europe
> Portugal 1.2 124 Europe Southern Europe
> Serbia 1.2 123 Europe Southern Europe
> Slovenia 0.7 15 Europe Southern Europe
> Spain 0.8 390 Europe Southern Europe
> Macedonia 1.9 40 Europe Southern Europe
> Austria 0.6 56 Europe Western Europe
> Belgium 1.7 180 Europe Western Europe
> France 1.1 682 Europe Western Europe
> Germany 0.8 690 Europe Western Europe
> Liechtenstein 2.8 1 Europe Western Europe
> Luxembourg 2.5 12 Europe Western Europe
> Monaco 0.0 0 Europe Western Europe
> Netherlands 1.1 179 Europe Western Europe
> Switzerland 0.7 52 Europe Western Europe
> Australia 1.0 229 Oceania Australasia
> New Zealand 0.9 39 Oceania Australasia
> Fiji 2.8 23 Oceania Melanesia
> *Papua New Guinea 13.0 854 Oceania Melanesia *
> Solomon Islands 3.7 19 Oceania Melanesia
> Vanuatu 0.9 2 Oceania Melanesia
> Guam 0.6 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Kiribati 7.3 7 Oceania Micronesia *
> Federated States of Micronesia 0.9 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Nauru 9.8 1 Oceania Micronesia *
> Palau 0.0 0 Oceania Micronesia
> French Polynesia 0.4 1 Oceania Polynesia
> Samoa 1.1 2 Oceania Polynesia
> Tonga 1.0 1 Oceania Polynesia
> 
> 
> 
> http://UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get your point.
> 
> On the other hand it strikes me, looking at the list, that most all of those countries with higher rates than ours are 2nd and 3rd world countries....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> half the population of the US is from those countries now
Click to expand...


It's not.   Not even remotely close.   

And while I get your point, my family was Irish.   If you know your history you know people have been complaining about those coming into this country since the indians said, "WTF!" upon seeing the first sail on the horizon.


----------



## Snookie

M14 Shooter said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from.
> 
> 
> 
> Similary, we can ban Islam because you can still be a Jew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean only bad guys will get assualt rifles? Has it not occurred to anyone that if the guns are banned then gun manufacturers will stop making them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like in 1994-2004, the manufacturers will modify their designs to comply with the law and continue build them.
> 
> If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload?
> No. Criminals, as buyers or sellers, will not submit to background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only under limited circumstances.
> it will, however, cost a number of gunowerns their lives as they will not have timely enough acess to their guns.
Click to expand...

 
Paranoia!


----------



## Spoonman

Snookie said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from.
> 
> 
> 
> Similary, we can ban Islam because you can still be a Jew.
> 
> 
> Like in 1994-2004, the manufacturers will modify their designs to comply with the law and continue build them.
> 
> If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload?
> No. Criminals, as buyers or sellers, will not submit to background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only under limited circumstances.
> it will, however, cost a number of gunowerns their lives as they will not have timely enough acess to their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paranoia!
Click to expand...


paranoia is wanting to ban guns


----------



## M14 Shooter

Spoonman said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similary, we can ban Islam because you can still be a Jew.
> 
> 
> Like in 1994-2004, the manufacturers will modify their designs to comply with the law and continue build them.
> 
> If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload?
> No. Criminals, as buyers or sellers, will not submit to background checks.
> 
> 
> Only under limited circumstances.
> it will, however, cost a number of gunowerns their lives as they will not have timely enough acess to their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> paranoia is wanting to ban guns
Click to expand...

Nah.   
There's two kinds of people in this regard:
1:  Those who believe that the state should have a monopoly on force and that an armed citizenry gets in the way of that
2:  The useful idiots that buy into the lies from the group noted above that gun control will improve public safety.


----------



## PaulS1950

There are over two million examples each year of people protecting themselves and others with their own firearms. If you add those people to those involved in violent crime you can get an idea of where the violent crime rate would be after disarming those legal gun owners.

If you don't like guns then don't buy one. Just because you don't like something is no reason to keep others from enjoying their legal guns. (including semi-automatic guns)


----------



## Capnyc

Not the cleanest of debates


----------



## Snookie

M14 Shooter said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia!
> 
> 
> 
> paranoia is wanting to ban guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> There's two kinds of people in this regard:
> 1: Those who believe that the state should have a monopoly on force and that an armed citizenry gets in the way of that
> 2: The useful idiots that buy into the lies from the group noted above that gun control will improve public safety.
Click to expand...

 
Bullshit, world  class.


----------



## PaulS1950

Snookie,
There is evidence all over the world, including in the USA that restricting the citizens and subjects of any nation to keep and bear arms only serves to escalate violent crime. 
Violent crime is what we want to reduce and a part of that is crimes with guns but there is more murder without the use of guns in the USA than with the use of guns. limiting the guns that the legal population can have will do absolutely nothing to keep criminals from getting them.
Criminals do go through background checks.
Criminals do not register guns.
Criminals do not obey the laws.
Criminals will use whatever means is at their disposal to commit crimes.

We need to focus on the cause - CRIMINALS if we want to get rid of crime.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PaulS1950 said:


> Snookie,
> There is evidence all over the world, including in the USA that restricting the citizens and subjects of any nation to keep and bear arms only serves to escalate violent crime.
> Violent crime is what we want to reduce and a part of that is crimes with guns but there is more murder without the use of guns in the USA than with the use of guns. limiting the guns that the legal population can have will do absolutely nothing to keep criminals from getting them.
> Criminals do go through background checks.
> Criminals do not register guns.
> Criminals do not obey the laws.
> Criminals will use whatever means is at their disposal to commit crimes.
> 
> We need to focus on the cause - CRIMINALS if we want to get rid of crime.


2: The useful idiots that buy into the lies from the group noted above that gun control will improve public safety.


----------



## jtpr312

Underhill said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not paranoia or ignorance to suggest that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds that citizens of similar nations - it's a fact.
> 
> Until you guys start addressing points like this with a little honesty, you are not really going to get to the starting point of this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic.  According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?
> 
> UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> Country Rate Count Region Subregion
> *Burundi 21.7 1,726 Africa Eastern Africa
> Comoros 12.2 85 Africa Eastern Africa * Djibouti 3.4 29 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Eritrea 17.8 879 Africa Eastern Africa
> Ethiopia 22.5 20,239 Africa Eastern Africa
> Kenya 20.1 7,733 Africa Eastern Africa
> Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Mauritius 2.5 33 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Mozambique 8.8 1,925 Africa Eastern Africa
> Rwanda 17.1 1,708 Africa Eastern Africa
> Seychelles 8.3 7 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Somalia 1.5 138+ Africa Eastern Africa
> *Tanzania 24.5 10,357 Africa Eastern Africa
> Zimbabwe 14.3 1,775 Africa Eastern Africa
> Angola 19.0 3,426 Africa Middle Africa
> Cameroon 19.7 3,700 Africa Middle Africa
> Central African Republic 29.3 1,240 Africa Middle Africa
> Chad 15.8 1,686 Africa Middle Africa
> Congo 30.8 1,180 Africa Middle Africa
> Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7 13,558 Africa Middle Africa *
> Equatorial Guinea 20.7 137 Africa Middle Africa
> *São Tomé and Príncipe 1.9 3 Africa Middle Africa
> Gabon 13.8 200 Africa Middle Africa *
> Algeria 1.5 516 Africa Northern Africa
> Egypt 1.2 992 Africa Northern Africa
> Libya 2.9 176+ Africa Northern Africa
> Morocco 1.4 447 Africa Northern Africa
> *Sudan 24.2 10,028++ Africa Northern Africa *
> Tunisia 1.1 117 Africa Northern Africa
> *Botswana 14.5 287 Africa Southern Africa
> Lesotho 35.2 764 Africa Southern Africa
> Namibia 17.2 352 Africa Southern Africa
> South Africa 31.8 15,940 Africa Southern Africa
> Swaziland 12.9 141 Africa Southern Africa
> Benin 15.1 1,262 Africa Western Africa
> Burkina Faso 18.0 2,876 Africa Western Africa
> Cape Verde 11.6 56 Africa Western Africa
> Côte d'Ivoire 56.9 10,801 Africa Western Africa
> Gambia 10.8 106 Africa Western Africa
> Ghana 15.7 3,646 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea 22.5 2,152 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea-Bissau 20.2 294 Africa Western Africa
> Liberia 10.1 371 Africa Western Africa
> Mali 8.0 1,157 Africa Western Africa
> Mauritania 14.7 485 Africa Western Africa *
> Niger 3.8 552 Africa Western Africa
> *Nigeria 12.2 18,422 Africa Western Africa
> Senegal 8.7 1,027 Africa Western Africa
> Sierra Leone 14.9 837 Africa Western Africa
> Togo 10.9 627 Africa Western Africa
> Anguilla 6.8 1 Americas Caribbean
> Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Americas Caribbean
> Bahamas 27.4 94 Americas Caribbean
> Barbados 11.3 31 Americas Caribbean
> British Virgin Islands 8.6 2 Americas Caribbean
> Cayman Islands 8.4 5 Americas Caribbean
> Cuba 5.0 563 Americas Caribbean
> Dominica 22.1 15 Americas Caribbean
> Dominican Republic 25.0 2,513 Americas Caribbean
> Grenada 11.5 12 Americas Caribbean
> Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Americas Caribbean
> Haiti 6.9 689 Americas Caribbean
> Jamaica 52.2 1,430 Americas Caribbean *
> Martinique 4.2 17 Americas Caribbean
> *Montserrat 19.7 1 Americas Caribbean
> Puerto Rico 26.2 983 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2 20 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Lucia 25.2 44 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9 25 Americas Caribbean
> Trinidad and Tobago 35.2 472 Americas Caribbean
> Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7 3 Americas Caribbean
> U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2 43 Americas Caribbean
> Belize 41.4 129 Americas Central America
> Costa Rica 10.0 474 Americas Central America
> El Salvador 69.2 4,308 Americas Central America
> Guatemala 38.5 5,681 Americas Central America
> Honduras 91.6 7,104 Americas Central America
> Mexico 22.7 25,757+ Americas Northern America
> Nicaragua 13.6 785 Americas Central America
> Panama 21.6 759 Americas Central America
> Bermuda 12.3 8 Americas Northern America * Canada 1.6 554 Americas Northern America
> United States 4.8 14,748 Americas Northern America
> Argentina 3.4 1,360 Americas South America
> *Bolivia 8.9 884 Americas South America
> Brazil 21.0 40,974 Americas South America *
> Chile 3.2 541 Americas South America
> *Colombia 31.0 14,670+[9] Americas South America
> Ecuador 15.2 2,638 Americas South America
> French Guiana 13.3 30 Americas South America
> Guyana 18.6 140 Americas South America
> Paraguay 11.5 741 Americas South America
> Peru 10.3 2,969 Americas South America *
> Suriname 4.6 24 Americas South America
> *Uruguay 5.9 199 Americas South America
> Venezuela 45.1 13,080 Americas South America
> Kazakhstan 8.8 1,418 Asia Central Asia
> Kyrgyzstan 20.1 1,072 Asia Central Asia *
> Tajikistan 2.1 143 Asia Central Asia
> Turkmenistan 4.2 203 Asia Central Asia
> Uzbekistan 3.1 831 Asia Central Asia
> China 1.0 13,410 Asia Eastern Asia
> Taiwan 3.2 743 Asia Eastern Asia
> *North Korea 15.2 3,658 Asia Eastern Asia *
> Hong Kong 0.2 17 Asia Eastern Asia
> Japan 0.4 506 Asia Eastern Asia
> Macau 0.7 4 Asia Eastern Asia
> *Mongolia 8.7 239 Asia Eastern Asia *
> South Korea 2.6 1,251 Asia Eastern Asia
> Brunei 0.5 2 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Cambodia 3.4 448 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> * Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Laos 4.6 279 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Malaysia 2.3 604 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Myanmar 10.2 4,800 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Philippines 5.4 4,947 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Singapore 0.3 16 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Thailand 4.8 3,307 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Vietnam 1.6 1,346 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Afghanistan 2.4 712+ Asia Southern Asia
> Bangladesh 2.7 3,988 Asia Southern Asia
> Bhutan 1.0 7 Asia Southern Asia
> India 3.4 40,752+ Asia Southern Asia
> Iran 3.0 2,215 Asia Southern Asia
> Maldives 1.6 5 Asia Southern Asia
> Nepal 2.8 818 Asia Southern Asia
> *Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Asia Southern Asia *
> Sri Lanka 3.6 745 Asia Southern Asia
> Armenia 1.4 44 Asia Western Asia
> Azerbaijan 2.2 206 Asia Western Asia
> Bahrain 0.6 6 Asia Western Asia
> Cyprus 1.7 19 Asia Western Asia
> Iraq 2.0 608+ Asia Western Asia
> Israel 2.1 159+ Asia Western Asia
> Jordan 1.8 100 Asia Western Asia
> Kuwait 2.2 59 Asia Western Asia
> Lebanon 2.2 95 Asia Western Asia
> Palestine 4.1 145+ Asia Western Asia
> Oman 0.7 18 Asia Western Asia
> Qatar 0.9 13 Asia Western Asia
> Saudi Arabia 1.0 265+ Asia Western Asia
> Syria 2.3 463+ Asia Western Asia
> Turkey 3.3 2,320 Asia Western Asia
> United Arab Emirates 0.8 39 Asia Western Asia
> Yemen 4.2 990+ Asia Western Asia
> *Belarus 4.9 473 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Bulgaria 2.0 147 Europe Eastern Europe
> Czech Republic 1.7 181 Europe Eastern Europe
> Georgia 4.3 187 Europe Eastern Europe
> Hungary 1.3 133 Europe Eastern Europe
> Poland 1.1 436 Europe Eastern Europe
> * Moldova 7.5 267 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Romania 2.0 421 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Russia 10.2 14,574 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Slovakia 1.5 84 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Denmark 0.9 47 Europe Northern Europe
> * Estonia 5.2 70 Europe Northern Europe *
> Finland 2.2 118 Europe Northern Europe
> Greenland 19.2 11 Europe Northern Europe
> Iceland 0.3 1 Europe Northern Europe
> Ireland 1.2 54 Europe Northern Europe
> Latvia 3.1 70 Europe Northern Europe
> * Lithuania 6.6 219 Europe Northern Europe *
> Norway 0.6 29 Europe Northern Europe
> Sweden 1.0 91 Europe Northern Europe
> United Kingdom 1.2 722 Europe Northern Europe
> Albania 4.0 127 Europe Southern Europe
> Andorra 1.3 1 Europe Southern Europe
> Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.5 56 Europe Southern Europe
> Croatia 1.4 62 Europe Southern Europe
> Greece 1.5 176 Europe Southern Europe
> Italy 0.9 529 Europe Southern Europe
> Malta 1.0 4 Europe Southern Europe
> Montenegro 3.5 22 Europe Southern Europe
> Portugal 1.2 124 Europe Southern Europe
> Serbia 1.2 123 Europe Southern Europe
> Slovenia 0.7 15 Europe Southern Europe
> Spain 0.8 390 Europe Southern Europe
> Macedonia 1.9 40 Europe Southern Europe
> Austria 0.6 56 Europe Western Europe
> Belgium 1.7 180 Europe Western Europe
> France 1.1 682 Europe Western Europe
> Germany 0.8 690 Europe Western Europe
> Liechtenstein 2.8 1 Europe Western Europe
> Luxembourg 2.5 12 Europe Western Europe
> Monaco 0.0 0 Europe Western Europe
> Netherlands 1.1 179 Europe Western Europe
> Switzerland 0.7 52 Europe Western Europe
> Australia 1.0 229 Oceania Australasia
> New Zealand 0.9 39 Oceania Australasia
> Fiji 2.8 23 Oceania Melanesia
> *Papua New Guinea 13.0 854 Oceania Melanesia *
> Solomon Islands 3.7 19 Oceania Melanesia
> Vanuatu 0.9 2 Oceania Melanesia
> Guam 0.6 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Kiribati 7.3 7 Oceania Micronesia *
> Federated States of Micronesia 0.9 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Nauru 9.8 1 Oceania Micronesia *
> Palau 0.0 0 Oceania Micronesia
> French Polynesia 0.4 1 Oceania Polynesia
> Samoa 1.1 2 Oceania Polynesia
> Tonga 1.0 1 Oceania Polynesia
> 
> 
> 
> http://UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get your point.
> 
> On the other hand it strikes me, looking at the list, that most all of those countries with higher rates than ours are 2nd and 3rd world countries....
Click to expand...


And your point rings the truth of the matter in this nation.  Our murder rate is so high because of the third world types in our nation.  If you take out the murders committed by blacks and hispanics, remembering that the so called "white" murder rates include almost all the hispanics also, and our murder rates are quite low.  This is the problem with a nation that allows unrestriced immigration and allows a small percentage of our population who have lengthy criminal records to walk freely among us even after 10, 15, 30 felonies on their jackets going back to their pre-teen years.


----------



## beagle9

MaryL said:


> OK, we repealed the 18th Amendment. That set a precedent, why cant we repeal the second amendment? I cant imagine how private gun ownership has helped ME feel free or be safe.  And people with guns harm our society. Perhaps its time to rethink the second amendment.


Maybe it's time you get out more, and become educated more, because you are living in some sort of a bubble or something. It has molded your opinions undoubtedly in a wrong headed way, and this from the postition in which you have been subjected to in your life I'm guessing, but it in no way accounts for the opinions and positions held by the majority of this nations law abiding and gun loving citizens. This nation will not fold to such idiotic pressures being mounted by those who are or have been made dependent sheeple, and that are weak and uneducated in these sorts of things. It will not fold to those that have become a people for whom will believe anything these days except for the truth, and this instead of all the independent freedom lovers whom believe in America, it's founding and it's over all concept and the truth.


----------



## beagle9

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible idea that won't work.  What you do is increase the taxes on the purchase and harboring of the items to make it unappealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you price poor people out of the ability to protect themselves.
> 
> How progressive.
Click to expand...

Exactly, as if the rich man is somehow far more credible always, in order to have anything more so than a poor man has and/or is responsible for in his life, and so the poor man is not credible ever or anymore they think ?  They fall always into their own traps in which they make when they are wrong and trying to defend the indefensible, especially in such uneducated ways, and it is actually quite highly entertaining to watch and listen to when they are caught in their own traps laid.


----------



## beagle9

Spoonman said:


> We could always ban guns like brazil, which has a higher homicide rate from guns then we do.


Is there not gun shipments being made all over the world, and this in order to help poor oppressive people, to then fight against their oppressors, oppressive governments, rogue leaders, bad tribes or tribal factions, extremist etc. and this as a means found in a supposed helping policy or stance we have as a U.S. government back here towards them or for them ? If guns and weapons don't make the world safer, then why is America sending arms and weapons to other countries for them to use in wars and civil wars as we do ? Why does the government of the U.S. feel that weapons only work to solve problems in other nations, but not here in America? Even when found in the hands of Americans who are law abiding and responsible citizens within their own nation, yet they still are attempting to group these law abiding citizens in with criminals or bad people, but why ? I know why, it's because the radical left wing is on a mission now (never let a crisis go to waste remember), and if you don't think this is so, then just open ones ears to it all, even if have to go back and reference many statements made in the past by these people, who are united in a cause to defeat their political and/or specific enemies/foes within, and yes they have defined their enemy in these statements made in the past, so if people don't know these things by now, then they are completly stupid.


----------



## beagle9

Spoonman said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic.  According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?
> 
> UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> Country Rate Count Region Subregion
> *Burundi 21.7 1,726 Africa Eastern Africa
> Comoros 12.2 85 Africa Eastern Africa * Djibouti 3.4 29 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Eritrea 17.8 879 Africa Eastern Africa
> Ethiopia 22.5 20,239 Africa Eastern Africa
> Kenya 20.1 7,733 Africa Eastern Africa
> Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Mauritius 2.5 33 Africa Eastern Africa
> *Mozambique 8.8 1,925 Africa Eastern Africa
> Rwanda 17.1 1,708 Africa Eastern Africa
> Seychelles 8.3 7 Africa Eastern Africa *
> Somalia 1.5 138+ Africa Eastern Africa
> *Tanzania 24.5 10,357 Africa Eastern Africa
> Zimbabwe 14.3 1,775 Africa Eastern Africa
> Angola 19.0 3,426 Africa Middle Africa
> Cameroon 19.7 3,700 Africa Middle Africa
> Central African Republic 29.3 1,240 Africa Middle Africa
> Chad 15.8 1,686 Africa Middle Africa
> Congo 30.8 1,180 Africa Middle Africa
> Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7 13,558 Africa Middle Africa *
> Equatorial Guinea 20.7 137 Africa Middle Africa
> *São Tomé and Príncipe 1.9 3 Africa Middle Africa
> Gabon 13.8 200 Africa Middle Africa *
> Algeria 1.5 516 Africa Northern Africa
> Egypt 1.2 992 Africa Northern Africa
> Libya 2.9 176+ Africa Northern Africa
> Morocco 1.4 447 Africa Northern Africa
> *Sudan 24.2 10,028++ Africa Northern Africa *
> Tunisia 1.1 117 Africa Northern Africa
> *Botswana 14.5 287 Africa Southern Africa
> Lesotho 35.2 764 Africa Southern Africa
> Namibia 17.2 352 Africa Southern Africa
> South Africa 31.8 15,940 Africa Southern Africa
> Swaziland 12.9 141 Africa Southern Africa
> Benin 15.1 1,262 Africa Western Africa
> Burkina Faso 18.0 2,876 Africa Western Africa
> Cape Verde 11.6 56 Africa Western Africa
> Côte d'Ivoire 56.9 10,801 Africa Western Africa
> Gambia 10.8 106 Africa Western Africa
> Ghana 15.7 3,646 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea 22.5 2,152 Africa Western Africa
> Guinea-Bissau 20.2 294 Africa Western Africa
> Liberia 10.1 371 Africa Western Africa
> Mali 8.0 1,157 Africa Western Africa
> Mauritania 14.7 485 Africa Western Africa *
> Niger 3.8 552 Africa Western Africa
> *Nigeria 12.2 18,422 Africa Western Africa
> Senegal 8.7 1,027 Africa Western Africa
> Sierra Leone 14.9 837 Africa Western Africa
> Togo 10.9 627 Africa Western Africa
> Anguilla 6.8 1 Americas Caribbean
> Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Americas Caribbean
> Bahamas 27.4 94 Americas Caribbean
> Barbados 11.3 31 Americas Caribbean
> British Virgin Islands 8.6 2 Americas Caribbean
> Cayman Islands 8.4 5 Americas Caribbean
> Cuba 5.0 563 Americas Caribbean
> Dominica 22.1 15 Americas Caribbean
> Dominican Republic 25.0 2,513 Americas Caribbean
> Grenada 11.5 12 Americas Caribbean
> Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Americas Caribbean
> Haiti 6.9 689 Americas Caribbean
> Jamaica 52.2 1,430 Americas Caribbean *
> Martinique 4.2 17 Americas Caribbean
> *Montserrat 19.7 1 Americas Caribbean
> Puerto Rico 26.2 983 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2 20 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Lucia 25.2 44 Americas Caribbean
> Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9 25 Americas Caribbean
> Trinidad and Tobago 35.2 472 Americas Caribbean
> Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7 3 Americas Caribbean
> U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2 43 Americas Caribbean
> Belize 41.4 129 Americas Central America
> Costa Rica 10.0 474 Americas Central America
> El Salvador 69.2 4,308 Americas Central America
> Guatemala 38.5 5,681 Americas Central America
> Honduras 91.6 7,104 Americas Central America
> Mexico 22.7 25,757+ Americas Northern America
> Nicaragua 13.6 785 Americas Central America
> Panama 21.6 759 Americas Central America
> Bermuda 12.3 8 Americas Northern America * Canada 1.6 554 Americas Northern America
> United States 4.8 14,748 Americas Northern America
> Argentina 3.4 1,360 Americas South America
> *Bolivia 8.9 884 Americas South America
> Brazil 21.0 40,974 Americas South America *
> Chile 3.2 541 Americas South America
> *Colombia 31.0 14,670+[9] Americas South America
> Ecuador 15.2 2,638 Americas South America
> French Guiana 13.3 30 Americas South America
> Guyana 18.6 140 Americas South America
> Paraguay 11.5 741 Americas South America
> Peru 10.3 2,969 Americas South America *
> Suriname 4.6 24 Americas South America
> *Uruguay 5.9 199 Americas South America
> Venezuela 45.1 13,080 Americas South America
> Kazakhstan 8.8 1,418 Asia Central Asia
> Kyrgyzstan 20.1 1,072 Asia Central Asia *
> Tajikistan 2.1 143 Asia Central Asia
> Turkmenistan 4.2 203 Asia Central Asia
> Uzbekistan 3.1 831 Asia Central Asia
> China 1.0 13,410 Asia Eastern Asia
> Taiwan 3.2 743 Asia Eastern Asia
> *North Korea 15.2 3,658 Asia Eastern Asia *
> Hong Kong 0.2 17 Asia Eastern Asia
> Japan 0.4 506 Asia Eastern Asia
> Macau 0.7 4 Asia Eastern Asia
> *Mongolia 8.7 239 Asia Eastern Asia *
> South Korea 2.6 1,251 Asia Eastern Asia
> Brunei 0.5 2 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Cambodia 3.4 448 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> * Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Laos 4.6 279 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Malaysia 2.3 604 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Myanmar 10.2 4,800 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Philippines 5.4 4,947 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Singapore 0.3 16 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Thailand 4.8 3,307 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> *Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Asia South-Eastern Asia *
> Vietnam 1.6 1,346 Asia South-Eastern Asia
> Afghanistan 2.4 712+ Asia Southern Asia
> Bangladesh 2.7 3,988 Asia Southern Asia
> Bhutan 1.0 7 Asia Southern Asia
> India 3.4 40,752+ Asia Southern Asia
> Iran 3.0 2,215 Asia Southern Asia
> Maldives 1.6 5 Asia Southern Asia
> Nepal 2.8 818 Asia Southern Asia
> *Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Asia Southern Asia *
> Sri Lanka 3.6 745 Asia Southern Asia
> Armenia 1.4 44 Asia Western Asia
> Azerbaijan 2.2 206 Asia Western Asia
> Bahrain 0.6 6 Asia Western Asia
> Cyprus 1.7 19 Asia Western Asia
> Iraq 2.0 608+ Asia Western Asia
> Israel 2.1 159+ Asia Western Asia
> Jordan 1.8 100 Asia Western Asia
> Kuwait 2.2 59 Asia Western Asia
> Lebanon 2.2 95 Asia Western Asia
> Palestine 4.1 145+ Asia Western Asia
> Oman 0.7 18 Asia Western Asia
> Qatar 0.9 13 Asia Western Asia
> Saudi Arabia 1.0 265+ Asia Western Asia
> Syria 2.3 463+ Asia Western Asia
> Turkey 3.3 2,320 Asia Western Asia
> United Arab Emirates 0.8 39 Asia Western Asia
> Yemen 4.2 990+ Asia Western Asia
> *Belarus 4.9 473 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Bulgaria 2.0 147 Europe Eastern Europe
> Czech Republic 1.7 181 Europe Eastern Europe
> Georgia 4.3 187 Europe Eastern Europe
> Hungary 1.3 133 Europe Eastern Europe
> Poland 1.1 436 Europe Eastern Europe
> * Moldova 7.5 267 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Romania 2.0 421 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Russia 10.2 14,574 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Slovakia 1.5 84 Europe Eastern Europe
> *Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Europe Eastern Europe *
> Denmark 0.9 47 Europe Northern Europe
> * Estonia 5.2 70 Europe Northern Europe *
> Finland 2.2 118 Europe Northern Europe
> Greenland 19.2 11 Europe Northern Europe
> Iceland 0.3 1 Europe Northern Europe
> Ireland 1.2 54 Europe Northern Europe
> Latvia 3.1 70 Europe Northern Europe
> * Lithuania 6.6 219 Europe Northern Europe *
> Norway 0.6 29 Europe Northern Europe
> Sweden 1.0 91 Europe Northern Europe
> United Kingdom 1.2 722 Europe Northern Europe
> Albania 4.0 127 Europe Southern Europe
> Andorra 1.3 1 Europe Southern Europe
> Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.5 56 Europe Southern Europe
> Croatia 1.4 62 Europe Southern Europe
> Greece 1.5 176 Europe Southern Europe
> Italy 0.9 529 Europe Southern Europe
> Malta 1.0 4 Europe Southern Europe
> Montenegro 3.5 22 Europe Southern Europe
> Portugal 1.2 124 Europe Southern Europe
> Serbia 1.2 123 Europe Southern Europe
> Slovenia 0.7 15 Europe Southern Europe
> Spain 0.8 390 Europe Southern Europe
> Macedonia 1.9 40 Europe Southern Europe
> Austria 0.6 56 Europe Western Europe
> Belgium 1.7 180 Europe Western Europe
> France 1.1 682 Europe Western Europe
> Germany 0.8 690 Europe Western Europe
> Liechtenstein 2.8 1 Europe Western Europe
> Luxembourg 2.5 12 Europe Western Europe
> Monaco 0.0 0 Europe Western Europe
> Netherlands 1.1 179 Europe Western Europe
> Switzerland 0.7 52 Europe Western Europe
> Australia 1.0 229 Oceania Australasia
> New Zealand 0.9 39 Oceania Australasia
> Fiji 2.8 23 Oceania Melanesia
> *Papua New Guinea 13.0 854 Oceania Melanesia *
> Solomon Islands 3.7 19 Oceania Melanesia
> Vanuatu 0.9 2 Oceania Melanesia
> Guam 0.6 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Kiribati 7.3 7 Oceania Micronesia *
> Federated States of Micronesia 0.9 1 Oceania Micronesia
> *Nauru 9.8 1 Oceania Micronesia *
> Palau 0.0 0 Oceania Micronesia
> French Polynesia 0.4 1 Oceania Polynesia
> Samoa 1.1 2 Oceania Polynesia
> Tonga 1.0 1 Oceania Polynesia
> 
> 
> 
> http://UNODC murder rates most recent year (full table here)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get your point.
> 
> On the other hand it strikes me, looking at the list, that most all of those countries with higher rates than ours are 2nd and 3rd world countries....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> half the population of the US is from those countries now
Click to expand...

And they are beginning to win the culture wars within, as the nation takes shape into something soon to no longer be recognized by Americans, and this for those whom consider themselves "Americans" in the traditional sense, and not all these hyphenated Americans who are all over the place in not knowing who they are in their lives, and/or who they really want to be or be represented by..


----------



## beagle9

Underhill said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get your point.
> 
> On the other hand it strikes me, looking at the list, that most all of those countries with higher rates than ours are 2nd and 3rd world countries....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> half the population of the US is from those countries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not.   Not even remotely close.
> 
> And while I get your point, my family was Irish.   If you know your history you know people have been complaining about those coming into this country since the indians said, "WTF!" upon seeing the first sail on the horizon.
Click to expand...

I get your point as well, but this is a new influx being talked about in which has been taking place in the recent past or for a good many years now looking back, in which has this nation in a crux right now over all that has transpired in the way that it has transpired so quickly now, and in which has upset the balance for a natural occurance of these things to transpire properly, just as they should always transpire in that way, but they have not so we get what we are getting now as a result of it all (CULTURE CLASH).


----------



## beagle9

PaulS1950 said:


> There are over two million examples each year of people protecting themselves and others with their own firearms. If you add those people to those involved in violent crime you can get an idea of where the violent crime rate would be after disarming those legal gun owners.
> 
> If you don't like guns then don't buy one. Just because you don't like something is no reason to keep others from enjoying their legal guns. (including semi-automatic guns)


We had 5000 or more killed in the world trade towers, and Bin Laden almost suceeded in causing Americans to change their lives completely, and it did rattle us just like Conneticutt did, but we must stand fast as these things occur, because they are attacks on our freedoms as a nation and our republic, so we must not give in to these devils ever. If anything these acts should strengthen us, because we now know where the evil lives, and we see who is defending it also....


----------



## beagle9

PaulS1950 said:


> Snookie,
> There is evidence all over the world, including in the USA that restricting the citizens and subjects of any nation to keep and bear arms only serves to escalate violent crime.
> Violent crime is what we want to reduce and a part of that is crimes with guns but there is more murder without the use of guns in the USA than with the use of guns. limiting the guns that the legal population can have will do absolutely nothing to keep criminals from getting them.
> Criminals do go through background checks.
> Criminals do not register guns.
> Criminals do not obey the laws.
> Criminals will use whatever means is at their disposal to commit crimes.
> 
> We need to focus on the cause - CRIMINALS if we want to get rid of crime.


Yep, like strengthening the penalties of all gun crimes or even enforcing the laws and penalties as they should be enforced now, and next get rid of these idiot activist judges who serve the interest of criminals, and not that of the good law abiding citizenry in America.

I witnessed something very scary today, and it's crazy that people don't think about these sort of things until it's to late. What I witnessed was a set up at a gas station today, that was being conducted on a poor side of town where crime has been an issue, as well as other problems in the area. At this location they (the government?) was giving free cell phones out to poor people or is going to pay for their activation afterwards, whom were standing in a long line to recieve them. Now wasn't cell phones the main activating device that was used in Iraq and Afghanistan for these emprovised explosives ? 

Could cell phones in the hands of the wrong people, be even worse than Asault rifles or 30 round mag's etc? Why is the government issuing out cell phones to the people who are struggling in society the most, and for whom are borderlined susceptible to all sorts of propaghanda, hate speech, wrongful influence as directed upon them, and then turning them or directing their hatred towards the rich man or those within the government whom could become targets or targetted in an ambush where these cell phones could be used in such a way or as a cordinated attack against them? 

Tell me this please anybody, why such stuff is going on in this nation as we are seeing going on in this nation now ? I mean these phones could also be used in crimes, where the criminals could cordinate their activities with the use of these phones in many ways, so why are they being given out freely by the government like this ? The tent said FREE CELL PHONES, and there was a line of people waiting to get one.... KIdding me right ?


----------



## PaulS1950

The cell phones have GPS trackers in them. They can be monitored when they are on or off. 
The government can, and does, monitor all phone conversations regardless of where they originate from or the destination.

Why not give them out for free? It is as good a leash as any government needs on its subjects.


----------



## blackhawk

Here is a new concept instead of focusing so much on the gun used in crimes why not try focusing on what drives people to commit the crimes looking at the economic, social, and mental parts of the issue? It seems that would go much farther in cutting down on not just gun violence but violence as a whole than some kind of ban.


----------



## PaulS1950

Yes, but how do we go about doing it?
We have to respect the other rights while defending our right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Saigon

> If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic. According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?



It's a very sad day for America when he bast the US can hope for is to be better than Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. 

Once again, the US has the worst record on homicide in the developed world. Not only is it the worse, it has a record twice as bad as any other developed country, and 10 times as bad as most developed countries. 

The fact that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gun shot wounds than people in other developed countries is damning and tragic, and something posters here defend not out of logic, but out of blind political faith.


----------



## Saigon

blackhawk said:


> Here is a new concept instead of focusing so much on the gun used in crimes why not try focusing on what drives people to commit the crimes looking at the economic, social, and mental parts of the issue? It seems that would go much farther in cutting down on not just gun violence but violence as a whole than some kind of ban.



This is a very good point - all sides of this equation need to be studied. I totally agree.


----------



## Politico

Saigon said:


> Once again, the US has the worst record on homicide in the developed world.



Yeah and 65% of them involve alcohol. But it's all about hating guns so......


----------



## Saigon

Politico said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the US has the worst record on homicide in the developed world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and 65% of them involve alcohol. But it's all about hating guns so......
Click to expand...


It certainly isn't about hating guns in my case, and I agree alcohol (and drugs) are major factors, in a lot of domestic shootings especially. 

That is one factor that could be considered in future, although I'm not sure what role legislation has in that question. Alcohol is also a problem in the UK - but they have 10% of the gun homicides that the US has. 

That said, in how many of the mass shootings of the past 10 years has alcohol been involved...I can't think of any myself.


----------



## The Rabbi

Saigon said:


> If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic. According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very sad day for America when he bast the US can hope for is to be better than Afghanistan and Zimbabwe.
> 
> Once again, the US has the worst record on homicide in the developed world. Not only is it the worse, it has a record twice as bad as any other developed country, and 10 times as bad as most developed countries.
> 
> The fact that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gun shot wounds than people in other developed countries is damning and tragic, and something posters here defend not out of logic, but out of blind political faith.
Click to expand...


And it's not really true.
But even if it were true, what would you like to do about it?


----------



## jtpr312

Saigon said:


> If you compare the murder rate in the US to the rest of the world, we don't fare too bad and that's WITH over 300,000,000 firearms, so 20 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound is a meaningless statistic. According to the FBI you have better chance of dying from a hammer strike than a rifle bullet, so who's bullcrapping who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very sad day for America when he bast the US can hope for is to be better than Afghanistan and Zimbabwe.
> 
> Once again, the US has the worst record on homicide in the developed world. Not only is it the worse, it has a record twice as bad as any other developed country, and 10 times as bad as most developed countries.
> 
> The fact that Americans are 20 times more likely to die of gun shot wounds than people in other developed countries is damning and tragic, and something posters here defend not out of logic, but out of blind political faith.
Click to expand...


Here's the fact of the matter.  We, America, need to put a leash on the third world mentality types in this nation that ARE the cause of us having such high murder rates.  If you took the murders commited by hispanics and blacks out of the equation this would be one of the safest nations in the world, so comparing us to other "developed" nations, without taking into account that more than 20% of our popuation are third world thinking minorities who commit well over 50% of the murders in this nation, is unfair and absurd.  If you look just to NYC 2010, you wil see 98% of ALL the murders committed in the city where committed by negroes or hispanics.  Take them out of the equation and you have one of the safest cities in the world, civilized world or third world.  We have a minority problem in this nation, not a crime problem or a gun problem, it's a demogrphics problem.  Remove these two groups from the population and viola, our murder rates would drop by well over 50%, making the US much safer than most other "developed" nations.  I know many of the guilt filled, head up their asses liberals here will take offense at this, but you can't deny the numbers, they are what they are and the facts/numbers speak for themselves.


----------



## Saigon

> If you took the murders commited by hispanics and blacks out of the equation this would be one of the safest nations in the world



Would it really?

How many of the mass shootings that have taken place in the US during the last decade have been committed by blacks or hispanics?


----------



## Snookie

Politico said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the US has the worst record on homicide in the developed world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and 65% of them involve alcohol. But it's all about hating guns so......
Click to expand...

 
Alcoholics should be denied guns.


----------



## midcan5

It is sorta amazing how the so called constitutional folks find reasons and quotations from over two hundred years ago to justify in their minds activities in the modern world. Shame they don't all have muskets too. But consider why the same ideologues do not argue against woman being able to vote for surely good reasons exist and quotes can be found. Let's not mention slavery either for John C. Calhoun had wonderful lines for the good of slavery. How wonderful it was for the slaves. When you live in the past, the present becomes a bizarre chimera.  Is it any wonder the republicans, aka American conservatives, fail so badly when given the reins of power? 

If there were a ban on whining, the right wing would be speechless, slippery slopes, oh, slippery slope - oh wait - let's go back to the days of great depression type crashes, pollution, lead paint, witch doctors, and toxic air for if we ban them the slippery slope begins and who knows where that might lead.


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the US has the worst record on homicide in the developed world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and 65% of them involve alcohol. But it's all about hating guns so......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alcoholics should be denied guns.
Click to expand...


It's already illegal for them to buy them.
Next.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and 65% of them involve alcohol. But it's all about hating guns so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alcoholics should be denied guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already illegal for them to buy them.
> Next.
Click to expand...

 
There ought to be a law where anyone caught with a gun in their possesion while under the influence be treated like drunk driving.  IMHO.


----------



## Katzndogz

The only thing bizarre is the liberal belief that criminals will obey a gun control law that they impose when those criminals don't obey any other laws, including firearm laws now.


----------



## Snookie

Katzndogz said:


> The only thing bizarre is the liberal belief that criminals will obey a gun control law that they impose when those criminals don't obey any other laws, including firearm laws now.


 
Well then, we just impose additional prison time on them when they get busted.


----------



## martybegan

Saigon said:


> If you took the murders commited by hispanics and blacks out of the equation this would be one of the safest nations in the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it really?
> 
> How many of the mass shootings that have taken place in the US during the last decade have been committed by blacks or hispanics?
Click to expand...


What is your risk of dying in a mass shooting vs. the risk someone in the ghetto faces of getting shot?

Here is a hint, the person in the ghetto is screwed.


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alcoholics should be denied guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal for them to buy them.
> Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ought to be a law where anyone caught with a gun in their possesion while under the influence be treated like drunk driving.  IMHO.
Click to expand...


Actually there already is.

Are there any other inane, stupid ineffective laws you'd like to see passed in the hope of sticking it to gun owners/the NRA/white men or anyone else who is keeping you down?


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal for them to buy them.
> Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ought to be a law where anyone caught with a gun in their possesion while under the influence be treated like drunk driving. IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually there already is.
> 
> Are there any other inane, stupid ineffective laws you'd like to see passed in the hope of sticking it to gun owners/the NRA/white men or anyone else who is keeping you down?
Click to expand...

 
Your  reasoning is that we should not have laws because criminals will not obey them,  LOL.


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There ought to be a law where anyone caught with a gun in their possesion while under the influence be treated like drunk driving. IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there already is.
> 
> Are there any other inane, stupid ineffective laws you'd like to see passed in the hope of sticking it to gun owners/the NRA/white men or anyone else who is keeping you down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your  reasoning is that we should not have laws because criminals will not obey them,  LOL.
Click to expand...


Actually it isn't.
My reasoning is that ineffective laws are ineffective. But it seems every post you want to propose a law to fix this or that.  When pointed out that many of those things are already laws, you ignore it.


----------



## martybegan

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there already is.
> 
> Are there any other inane, stupid ineffective laws you'd like to see passed in the hope of sticking it to gun owners/the NRA/white men or anyone else who is keeping you down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your  reasoning is that we should not have laws because criminals will not obey them,  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't.
> My reasoning is that ineffective laws are ineffective. But it seems every post you want to propose a law to fix this or that.  When pointed out that many of those things are already laws, you ignore it.
Click to expand...


What we need are less laws that TURN ordinary people into criminals.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there already is.
> 
> Are there any other inane, stupid ineffective laws you'd like to see passed in the hope of sticking it to gun owners/the NRA/white men or anyone else who is keeping you down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasoning is that we should not have laws because criminals will not obey them, LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't.
> My reasoning is that ineffective laws are ineffective. But it seems every post you want to propose a law to fix this or that. When pointed out that many of those things are already laws, you ignore it.
Click to expand...

 
Why?  Just because you say so?  Quote me the laws.


----------



## Katzndogz

Snookie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing bizarre is the liberal belief that criminals will obey a gun control law that they impose when those criminals don't obey any other laws, including firearm laws now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, we just impose additional prison time on them when they get busted.
Click to expand...


Good.   First bust them.   Then be sure to bust them before they have committed dozens of crimes not after.  Then stop judges from releasing these criminals due to prison overcrowding.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Snookie

Katzndogz said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing bizarre is the liberal belief that criminals will obey a gun control law that they impose when those criminals don't obey any other laws, including firearm laws now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, we just impose additional prison time on them when they get busted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. First bust them. Then be sure to bust them before they have committed dozens of crimes not after. Then stop judges from releasing these criminals due to prison overcrowding.
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

 
It's not my fault that they wont raise taxes to build more prisons, is it?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Snookie said:


> Your  reasoning is that we should not have laws because criminals will not obey them,  LOL.



Punish violent criminals = problem solved.

Liberals have defanged the criminal justice system.


----------



## Saigon

OODA_Loop said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your  reasoning is that we should not have laws because criminals will not obey them,  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Punish violent criminals = problem solved.
> 
> Liberals have defanged the criminal justice system.
Click to expand...


And yet the US has more people in prison per capita than any other country, and is one of only a handful of countries to use the death penality. 

What would be your model - Iran? Saudi Arabia?


----------



## M14 Shooter

midcan5 said:


> It is sorta amazing how the so called constitutional folks find reasons and quotations from over two hundred years ago to justify in their minds activities in the modern world. Shame they don't all have muskets too.


With that in mind...
Expalin to us why the 4th amendment should cover your cell phone conversations.


----------



## The Rabbi

Saigon said:


> If you took the murders commited by hispanics and blacks out of the equation this would be one of the safest nations in the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it really?
> 
> How many of the mass shootings that have taken place in the US during the last decade have been committed by blacks or hispanics?
Click to expand...


That's irrelevant as mass shootings account for a very small fraction of gun deaths.


----------



## The Rabbi

Saigon said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your  reasoning is that we should not have laws because criminals will not obey them,  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Punish violent criminals = problem solved.
> 
> Liberals have defanged the criminal justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the US has more people in prison per capita than any other country, and is one of only a handful of countries to use the death penality.
> 
> What would be your model - Iran? Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant how many people are in jail.


----------



## Snookie

M14 Shooter said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sorta amazing how the so called constitutional folks find reasons and quotations from over two hundred years ago to justify in their minds activities in the modern world. Shame they don't all have muskets too.
> 
> 
> 
> With that in mind...
> Expalin to us why the 4th amendment should cover you cell phone conversations.
Click to expand...

 
I dont care.  I don't have a cell phone.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Punish violent criminals = problem solved.
> 
> Liberals have defanged the criminal justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the US has more people in prison per capita than any other country, and is one of only a handful of countries to use the death penality.
> 
> What would be your model - Iran? Saudi Arabia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is irrelevant how many people are in jail.
Click to expand...

 
It is to some people.  Just because you say so doesn't make it so.


----------



## Underhill

OODA_Loop said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your  reasoning is that we should not have laws because criminals will not obey them,  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Punish violent criminals = problem solved.
> 
> Liberals have defanged the criminal justice system.
Click to expand...


Seriously?   Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.   

Try and think about this for a minute.

We've had 7 robberies in my very rural area (2 counties with under 20k people in each) in the last 2 years.   All were from gun shops or people with large collections.   In each case between 50 and 200 guns were stolen.    All the guns were legal prior to being stolen.   

How do people think these criminals get their guns?   Aside from organized crime, it's not some illegal importer bringing in Uzi's.   They are generally stolen guns.   

So all this talk about criminals following gun laws is nonsense.    It's not about criminals, like it or not.    It's about legal guns that end up in the hands of criminals.   Making certain guns illegal means less of those guns stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals.    

That is what these laws are about. 

I am not anti gun and I'm not in favor of banning assault rifles (although I think 30 round clips are unnecessary).   But I get sick of all the rhetoric.   If there is going to be a discussion then it would be nice to have one based in reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> ....It's about legal guns that end up in the hands of criminals.   Making certain guns illegal means less of those guns stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals.
> That is what these laws are about.


Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.


----------



## Snookie

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....It's about legal guns that end up in the hands of criminals. Making certain guns illegal means less of those guns stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals.
> That is what these laws are about.
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
> Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.
Click to expand...

 
Dancing with the straw man.


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....It's about legal guns that end up in the hands of criminals.   Making certain guns illegal means less of those guns stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals.
> That is what these laws are about.
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
> Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.
Click to expand...


As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.

I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.

If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....It's about legal guns that end up in the hands of criminals.   Making certain guns illegal means less of those guns stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals.
> That is what these laws are about.
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
> Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Click to expand...

But here -will- be AKs in homes and gun shops. - lots and lots and lots of them - as the existing guns will never be taken away.

And further, if someone cannot buy a particular sort of gun, he is likely to buy a gun of some other kind -- and thus, the number of guns availabe in homes and gun shops will not change.

So...  how does your idea hold any merit?


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
> Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.
> 
> 
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But here -will- be AKs in homes and gun shops. - lots and lots and lots of them - as the existing guns will never be taken away.
> 
> And further, if someone cannot buy a particular sort of gun, he is likely to buy a gun of some other kind -- and thus, the number of guns availabe in homes and gun shops will not change.
> 
> So...  how does your idea hold any merit?
Click to expand...


Did I say it did?

In point of fact I said I am against trying to ban assault rifles for the very reason you laid out.

But I am sick of hearing this crap about "Liberals think the criminals are going to obey the new laws!"

No, they really don't.    And it's not completely absurd.   Over time (decades) it could have an impact.   But it's just not worth the headache.    Better to focus on measures that might actually make a difference.

For example, we need to get rid of the regulations that essentially deball federal agencies and don't allow them to enforce current laws.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> But here -will- be AKs in homes and gun shops. - lots and lots and lots of them - as the existing guns will never be taken away.
> 
> And further, if someone cannot buy a particular sort of gun, he is likely to buy a gun of some other kind -- and thus, the number of guns availabe in homes and gun shops will not change.
> 
> So...  how does your idea hold any merit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say it did?
> 
> In point of fact I said I am against trying to ban assault rifles for the very reason you laid out.
> 
> But I am sick of hearing this crap about "Liberals think the criminals are going to obey the new laws!"
Click to expand...

The gun control laws they propose only work if the criminals obey them.


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the US has more people in prison per capita than any other country, and is one of only a handful of countries to use the death penality.
> 
> What would be your model - Iran? Saudi Arabia?
> 
> 
> 
> It is irrelevant how many people are in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is to some people.  Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...


No, it actually is irrelevant, regardless of what people think.  If we need tough laws for real crimes then it doesn't matter how many people are already in jail.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....It's about legal guns that end up in the hands of criminals.   Making certain guns illegal means less of those guns stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals.
> That is what these laws are about.
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
> Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Click to expand...


Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence.  And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation.  Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation.  Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
> Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence.  And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation.  Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation.  Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
Click to expand...


I will also add, creating new gun control laws will not stop new gun crimes. Doing something for the sake of doing something does not work. Let's do something that will work. Like get rid of gun free zones.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
> Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence. And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation. Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation. Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
Click to expand...

 
People should not own expensive cars.  They might get stolen.  lol.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence.  And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation.  Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation.  Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will also add, creating new gun control laws will not stop new gun crimes.
Click to expand...

Case in point, none of the proposed ideas for new legislation would have stopped the Newtown shooting had it been in place at the time, and none will stop another, should it be put in place.

But then, gun control doesnt have anything to do with public safety, so no one should be surprised about that.


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence. And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation. Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation. Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People should not own expensive cars.  They might get stolen.  lol.
Click to expand...


Actually everyone should own expensive cars.  And the gov't should tax rich people to subsidize expensive cars for poor people.
Right?


----------



## varelse

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and 65% of them involve alcohol. But it's all about hating guns so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alcoholics should be denied guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already illegal for them to buy them.
> Next.
Click to expand...


[citation needed]


----------



## blackhawk

Suppose this new assault weapon ban is passed and put into law what then? It does nothing to deal with the weapons already out there. What about weapons coming across the border? Our border is weakly secured at best now you have a ban here and that will only increase the flow across border anyone who traffics in guns will know business will be on the upswing unless there is a major push for tight border security which I highly doubt we will have a bigger problem coming across the border than we already do.


----------



## Saigon

blackhawk said:


> Suppose this new assault weapon ban is passed and put into law what then? It does nothing to deal with the weapons already out there. What about weapons coming across the border? Our border is weakly secured at best now you have a ban here and that will only increase the flow across border anyone who traffics in guns will know business will be on the upswing unless there is a major push for tight border security which I highly doubt we will have a bigger problem coming across the border than we already do.



Agreed. 

A lot more needs to be done to get guns out of the hands of gang members and so forth. I assume if assault weapons are illegal, they can also be confiscated & seized, so that might make a difference over time, but it would need a big push by police to do so.


----------



## varelse

That assumes they know where the illegal weapons are- that is, that they are aware of stockpiles and supply lines held by criminal organizations and persons- in which case, they should be raiding them already, as they're already illegally owned/acquired/transported


----------



## Saigon

varelse said:


> That assumes they know where the illegal weapons are- that is, that they are aware of stockpiles and supply lines held by criminal organizations and persons- in which case, they should be raiding them already, as they're already illegally owned/acquired/transported



Agreed - but I was thinking that strengthened laws might give police more freedom to seize weapons as they find them. e.g. raiding crack dens or pulling cars over the finding them in the trunk. Certainly I think the police need to be seizing weapons whenever they can.


----------



## varelse

Saigon said:


> Certainly I think the police need to be seizing weapons whenever they can.



Why, exactly, do you think the State should have a monopoly on force?


PoliceMisconduct.net | The Cato Institute's National Police Misconduct Reporting Project

Cop Block | Reporting Police Abuse, Brutality, and Corruption

Police Brutality ? Historic Pattern Continues | S. Brian Willson

From beating Wobblies, to stopping Occupy protesters or suffrage marchers, to every repressive regime in history- the police are the most immediate tool of State repression and force when governments decide to ignore the rights and liberties of the People. From the Thirteen Colonies, to the Confederacy, to Egypt and Libya, history shows up that only when the People can rival the State in terms of the ability to project lethal force to enforce their Will is there ever liberty. That, indeed, is the very reason for the Second Amendment in the first place.

Their is nothing preventing police from seizing weapons from those who are not legally permitted to have them when they are found; why do you wish to disarm non-criminal citizens, if not to ensure the State a monopoly on force and enable tyrants?


----------



## Grandma

Stephanie said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, only _certain_ types of guns and ammo would be banned. There are lots of other guns to choose from. It's not like having all hard alcohol and "good" beer removed and all we get is one brand of lite beer.
> 
> If the guns are banned, you can still keep the ones you have.
> 
> Does that mean only bad guys will get assualt rifles? Has it not occurred to anyone that if the guns are banned then gun manufacturers will stop making them? If gun purchases are limited and require a background check, won't that make it harder for criminals to get guns by the crateload? If owners are required to keep the guns in a safe, won't that make the guns harder to steal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> does it mean if abortions were banned people would stop having them and it would put the abortion clinics out of business?
> And if women were REQUIRED to have a background check before abortion that would prevent them from having one?
> 
> get it?
Click to expand...


When abortions were outlawed, only those with money could get them. The more money they had, the better the facilities. Are you saying that if certain guns were banned only the rich would have guns?


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of the ideas we've heard from the White House and the Dems in Congress since the Newtown shooting, which will stop criminals from stealing guns from the law abiding and then using them for crime?
> Be sure to describe how said laws will do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence.  And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation.  Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation.  Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that.   It may take some time but it will make them more scarce.    Here in NY high cap mags have been illegal for a long time and it's very rare to see the pre-ban clips.   As nobody needs them people really really don't seem to care other than the occasional die hard.


----------



## Underhill

blackhawk said:


> Suppose this new assault weapon ban is passed and put into law what then? It does nothing to deal with the weapons already out there. What about weapons coming across the border? Our border is weakly secured at best now you have a ban here and that will only increase the flow across border anyone who traffics in guns will know business will be on the upswing unless there is a major push for tight border security which I highly doubt we will have a bigger problem coming across the border than we already do.



From everything I've read guns are a bigger problem going the other way.    The cartels buy legal guns in pro gun states, where there are virtually no limits on the numbers and type of guns purchased,  and smuggle them across the border.


----------



## martybegan

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence.  And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation.  Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation.  Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.   It may take some time but it will make them more scarce.    Here in NY high cap mags have been illegal for a long time and it's very rare to see the pre-ban clips.   As nobody needs them people really really don't seem to care other than the occasional die hard.
Click to expand...


They have crossed the line now, however, with the whole 7 round magazine limit. Maybe people in NYC are a bunch of sheep on this issue, but upstate people are NOT happy right now.


----------



## The Rabbi

Saigon said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That assumes they know where the illegal weapons are- that is, that they are aware of stockpiles and supply lines held by criminal organizations and persons- in which case, they should be raiding them already, as they're already illegally owned/acquired/transported
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed - but I was thinking that strengthened laws might give police more freedom to seize weapons as they find them. e.g. raiding crack dens or pulling cars over the finding them in the trunk. Certainly I think the police need to be seizing weapons whenever they can.
Click to expand...


You understand that guns in the hands of felons are already seized, right?  The only way to "strengthen" the law is to disregard the 4th Amendment.  I realize that is no problem for today's Progressives, but courts might still have issues.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> As snookie so aptly pointed out, that is not what I said.
> 
> I said, taking away a gun or gun type from legal owners means those guns will not fall into the hands of thieves when they rob you.
> 
> If there are no AK's in the home or gun shop, then there are no AK's to steal from said home or gun shop.   It's not a difficult concept to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence.  And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation.  Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation.  Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.   It may take some time but it will make them more scarce.    Here in NY high cap mags have been illegal for a long time and it's very rare to see the pre-ban clips.   As nobody needs them people really really don't seem to care other than the occasional die hard.
Click to expand...


How often are you in places where people have guns around?  Why would someone display his illegal magazine to total strangers, including possible members of law enforcement?  You realize that someone driving through to FL could easily stop and buy high capacity mags along the way in states where it is legal and simply bring them back to NY, right?


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence.  And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation.  Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation.  Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.   It may take some time but it will make them more scarce.    Here in NY high cap mags have been illegal for a long time and it's very rare to see the pre-ban clips.   As nobody needs them people really really don't seem to care other than the occasional die hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How often are you in places where people have guns around?  Why would someone display his illegal magazine to total strangers, including possible members of law enforcement?  You realize that someone driving through to FL could easily stop and buy high capacity mags along the way in states where it is legal and simply bring them back to NY, right?
Click to expand...


Pre-ban clips are not illegal in NY (Or weren't prior to the latest regulations).  And I have dozens of friends with guns and exactly one with a couple 30 round clips (probably the only one of them who shouldn't as he's a bit mental).


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.   It may take some time but it will make them more scarce.    Here in NY high cap mags have been illegal for a long time and it's very rare to see the pre-ban clips.   As nobody needs them people really really don't seem to care other than the occasional die hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How often are you in places where people have guns around?  Why would someone display his illegal magazine to total strangers, including possible members of law enforcement?  You realize that someone driving through to FL could easily stop and buy high capacity mags along the way in states where it is legal and simply bring them back to NY, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pre-ban clips are not illegal in NY (Or weren't prior to the latest regulations).  And I have dozens of friends with guns and exactly one with a couple 30 round clips (probably the only one of them who shouldn't as he's a bit mental).
Click to expand...

OK so you didnt answer any questions.  Your personal experience is not really very relevant here.


----------



## Underhill

martybegan said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one, almost no one, is proposing to outlaw guns already in existence.  And if they did, criminals and many others would continue to own and acquire them.
> There are plenty of full auto guns out there illegally, despite their being effectively banned 80 years ago.
> So stopping production now of AR's etc would do nothing about the 30M or so already in circulation.  Stopping sales of hi cap mags will do nothing because there are about a gazillion hi cap mags in circulation.  Actually it will do something: it will drive up prices, making them attractive targets for theft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.   It may take some time but it will make them more scarce.    Here in NY high cap mags have been illegal for a long time and it's very rare to see the pre-ban clips.   As nobody needs them people really really don't seem to care other than the occasional die hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have crossed the line now, however, with the whole 7 round magazine limit. Maybe people in NYC are a bunch of sheep on this issue, but upstate people are NOT happy right now.
Click to expand...


I agree the 7 round limit is a bit much.   Pointless.


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How often are you in places where people have guns around?  Why would someone display his illegal magazine to total strangers, including possible members of law enforcement?  You realize that someone driving through to FL could easily stop and buy high capacity mags along the way in states where it is legal and simply bring them back to NY, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-ban clips are not illegal in NY (Or weren't prior to the latest regulations).  And I have dozens of friends with guns and exactly one with a couple 30 round clips (probably the only one of them who shouldn't as he's a bit mental).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so you didnt answer any questions.  Your personal experience is not really very relevant here.
Click to expand...


All the time.   I'm a hunter and virtually all my friends hunt.   I own 8 guns myself.  

And as I did answer, the clips are not illegal, so there is no reason anyone would have hid them. 

Of course I realize anyone could get clips and bring them here.    What has that got to do with the discussion?    People do not need 30 round clips so most people just don't care.  

The reduction from 10 to 7 is just silly though.    What is the point there?


----------



## Underhill

Actually the thing that has most people here up in arms isn't the limit to 7 rounds in our clips, but the new rule that pistol permits have to be renewed every 5 years.   

It could quickly become cost prohibitive to keep your permit.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-ban clips are not illegal in NY (Or weren't prior to the latest regulations).  And I have dozens of friends with guns and exactly one with a couple 30 round clips (probably the only one of them who shouldn't as he's a bit mental).
> 
> 
> 
> OK so you didnt answer any questions.  Your personal experience is not really very relevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the time.   I'm a hunter and virtually all my friends hunt.   I own 8 guns myself.
> 
> And as I did answer, the clips are not illegal, so there is no reason anyone would have hid them.
> 
> Of course I realize anyone could get clips and bring them here.    What has that got to do with the discussion?    People do not need 30 round clips so most people just don't care.
> 
> The reduction from 10 to 7 is just silly though.    What is the point there?
Click to expand...


What does it have to do with the discussion?  Everything.  Anyone could go and get "clips" of any capacity anytime he wanted.  So the ban is useless.
P.S. you aren't really a gun owner if you use a term like "clip" unless you're referring to an M1 Garand.


----------



## varelse

Underhill said:


> Pre-ban clips are not illegal in NY (Or weren't prior to the latest regulations).  And I have dozens of friends with guns and exactly one with a couple 30 round clips (probably the only one of them who shouldn't as he's a bit mental).


Prove I acquired it after the ban went into effect


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so you didnt answer any questions.  Your personal experience is not really very relevant here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the time.   I'm a hunter and virtually all my friends hunt.   I own 8 guns myself.
> 
> And as I did answer, the clips are not illegal, so there is no reason anyone would have hid them.
> 
> Of course I realize anyone could get clips and bring them here.    What has that got to do with the discussion?    People do not need 30 round clips so most people just don't care.
> 
> The reduction from 10 to 7 is just silly though.    What is the point there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with the discussion?  Everything.  Anyone could go and get "clips" of any capacity anytime he wanted.  So the ban is useless.
> P.S. you aren't really a gun owner if you use a term like "clip" unless you're referring to an M1 Garand.
Click to expand...


What a load of shit.   Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.


----------



## Underhill

varelse said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-ban clips are not illegal in NY (Or weren't prior to the latest regulations).  And I have dozens of friends with guns and exactly one with a couple 30 round clips (probably the only one of them who shouldn't as he's a bit mental).
> 
> 
> 
> Prove I acquired it after the ban went into effect
Click to expand...


You could acquire them after the ban perfectly legally.

They just had to be pre-ban clips.   

I didn't say it made sense.   But there aren't a hell of a lot of them around.   As I said, there is no need for them.   So most people just don't bother skirting the law.


----------



## varelse

Again, the ban is pointless- prove it's not a pre-ban clip.


----------



## Underhill

varelse said:


> Again, the ban is pointless- prove it's not a pre-ban clip.



I agree that there are ways around the law as it was written.   I just think most people didn't bother as they didn't need them. 

How many people are going to take the risk, even a miniscule one, to buy something they don't need?


----------



## M14 Shooter

varelse said:


> Again, the ban is pointless- prove it's not a pre-ban clip.


The laws than ban magazines put the burden on the state, to prove that it was manufactured after the ban was enacted.
Good luck with that.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the time.   I'm a hunter and virtually all my friends hunt.   I own 8 guns myself.
> 
> And as I did answer, the clips are not illegal, so there is no reason anyone would have hid them.
> 
> Of course I realize anyone could get clips and bring them here.    What has that got to do with the discussion?    People do not need 30 round clips so most people just don't care.
> 
> The reduction from 10 to 7 is just silly though.    What is the point there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with the discussion?  Everything.  Anyone could go and get "clips" of any capacity anytime he wanted.  So the ban is useless.
> P.S. you aren't really a gun owner if you use a term like "clip" unless you're referring to an M1 Garand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of shit.   Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.
Click to expand...


Well, dense anyway.
Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology


----------



## Snookie

M14 Shooter said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the ban is pointless- prove it's not a pre-ban clip.
> 
> 
> 
> The laws than ban magazines put the burden on the state, to prove that it was manufactured after the ban was enacted.
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

 
All this time I thought conservatives believed in the rule of law.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with the discussion? Everything. Anyone could go and get "clips" of any capacity anytime he wanted. So the ban is useless.
> P.S. you aren't really a gun owner if you use a term like "clip" unless you're referring to an M1 Garand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of shit. Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, dense anyway.
> Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology
Click to expand...

 
Gun bunny gibberish!  LOL.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Underhill said:


> Seriously?   Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.



Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?


----------



## Snookie

OODA_Loop said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?
Click to expand...

 
There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Snookie said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
Click to expand...


Those who have committed violent gun crimes, murdered or attempted to murder don't routinely get out of jail and recommit violent crimes ?


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the ban is pointless- prove it's not a pre-ban clip.
> 
> 
> 
> The laws than ban magazines put the burden on the state, to prove that it was manufactured after the ban was enacted.
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this time I thought conservatives believed in the rule of law.
Click to expand...


How does that demonstrate otherwise?


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of shit. Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, dense anyway.
> Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun bunny gibberish!  LOL.
Click to expand...


The firearms business is old and technical in nature.  Anything old and technical develops a vocabulary that is not meaningful to the uninformed outsider.


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with the discussion?  Everything.  Anyone could go and get "clips" of any capacity anytime he wanted.  So the ban is useless.
> P.S. you aren't really a gun owner if you use a term like "clip" unless you're referring to an M1 Garand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of shit.   Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, dense anyway.
> Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology
Click to expand...


I don't claim to be a weapons expert.   The difference is academic and has no bearing on the conversation.


----------



## Underhill

OODA_Loop said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who have committed violent gun crimes, murdered or attempted to murder don't routinely get out of jail and recommit violent crimes ?
Click to expand...


It all depends on when and where it was committed.   But most states have much harsher mandatories than in the past.    The same is true at the federal level.   

There are exceptions.

And it's a tough call when you consider the actual numbers.    Most murderers never do so again (most are crimes of passion never to be committed again).   The same cannot be said of rapist and thieves or especially child molesters.      

Here is one example among many...

Low Recidivism Rate Reported For Paroled NY Murderers


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws than ban magazines put the burden on the state, to prove that it was manufactured after the ban was enacted.
> Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All this time I thought conservatives believed in the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that demonstrate otherwise?
Click to expand...

 

LOL.  Surely, you are joking?


----------



## Spoonman

Snookie said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
Click to expand...


one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.


----------



## Snookie

Spoonman said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
Click to expand...

 
I understand, you're omniscient.


----------



## Underhill

Spoonman said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
Click to expand...


Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.   

That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.

Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically. 

So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
Click to expand...

Your conclusion supposes many things that cannot be supposed.  
The most obvious:
-If the banned guns are not part of the 300k stolen guns, the 300k number does not change
-If the banned gun are part of the 300k stolen, it assumes that other kinds of guns will not be stolen instead.


----------



## Spoonman

Snookie said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand, you're omniscient.
Click to expand...

  omnipotent as well


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your conclusion supposes many things that cannot be supposed.
> The most obvious:
> -If the banned guns are not part of the 300k stolen guns, the 300k number does not change
> -If the banned gun are part of the 300k stolen, it assumes that other kinds of guns will not be stolen instead.
Click to expand...


It wasn't perfect.   But my point is valid.    Gun laws can affect criminals.    

Taking your points, I would say that yes, other guns might be stolen.   But since the point of gun laws (such as the assault weapon ban) is to keep those guns out of the hands of criminals, I would say the laws were affective.  

I have problems with gun bans for other reasons.   Logical reasons.  But this nonsense about criminals not following gun laws needs to stop.   It simply makes gun owners look dense.


----------



## Spoonman

Underhill said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
Click to expand...


here's another fact for you. in 1970 under the controlled substances act marijuana became a class 1 drug and had increased penalties for its possesion.  did that reduce its availability by half?  do we have less avaialble today?  the minute you take legal guns out of the picture, the black market grows.  now you have no gun control.  you have turned a legal, constitutional right into another drug war.   gangs will love you for it.  and not one gun will be registered.  you do nothing but open up a gold mine for illegal activity.


----------



## Underhill

Spoonman said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here's another fact for you. in 1970 under the controlled substances act marijuana became a class 1 drug and had increased penalties for its possesion.  did that reduce its availability by half?  do we have less avaialble today?  the minute you take legal guns out of the picture, the black market grows.  now you have no gun control.  you have turned a legal, constitutional right into another drug war.   gangs will love you for it.  and not one gun will be registered.  you do nothing but open up a gold mine for illegal activity.
Click to expand...


This would be on my list of reasons why I'm against bans.   

But nobody, including liberals of the darkest shade, believes that criminals will follow gun laws.    It's a nonsensical argument.    

I think pot should be legal too.    But that is a separate thread...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion supposes many things that cannot be supposed.
> The most obvious:
> -If the banned guns are not part of the 300k stolen guns, the 300k number does not change
> -If the banned gun are part of the 300k stolen, it assumes that other kinds of guns will not be stolen instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't perfect.   But my point is valid.    Gun laws can affect criminals.
Click to expand...

CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.

Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not.  There are no 'assault weapons'?  I'll steal a shotgun.

That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion supposes many things that cannot be supposed.
> The most obvious:
> -If the banned guns are not part of the 300k stolen guns, the 300k number does not change
> -If the banned gun are part of the 300k stolen, it assumes that other kinds of guns will not be stolen instead.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't perfect.   But my point is valid.    Gun laws can affect criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.
> 
> Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not.  There are no 'assault weapons'?  I'll steal a shotgun.
> 
> That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.
Click to expand...


And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.

But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined.  Thing is, they usually aren't.    If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.  

The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late.   There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.    

This is not really a good thing.   

And I'll explain.   I think guns in cities is absurd.   I don't think everyone should wear a gun.   I could do it.  But I have no need for it.    I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.

I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.   Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in.   But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.  

I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.  

But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.  

In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols.    I don't need them to hunt.    Nobody should feel they need them.

But that isn't the world we live in.    So we will continue to live in fear.   Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs.   And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.   

Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.


----------



## Spoonman

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't perfect.   But my point is valid.    Gun laws can affect criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.
> 
> Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not.  There are no 'assault weapons'?  I'll steal a shotgun.
> 
> That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.
> 
> But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined.  Thing is, they usually aren't.    If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.
> 
> The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late.   There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.
> 
> This is not really a good thing.
> 
> And I'll explain.   I think guns in cities is absurd.   I don't think everyone should wear a gun.   I could do it.  But I have no need for it.    I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.
> 
> I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.   Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in.   But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.
> 
> I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.
> 
> But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.
> 
> In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols.    I don't need them to hunt.    Nobody should feel they need them.
> 
> But that isn't the world we live in.    So we will continue to live in fear.   Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs.   And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.
> 
> Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.
Click to expand...


criminals are probably more determined.  they just know they can get a bigger payday for less effort and grief than a 9-5.  plust they can get welfare and other entitlements on top of it.

It isn't about fear.  I have a ton of guns and not one was purchased out of fear. I like to shoot, bottom line.  do you buy your hobbies out of fear?  you anti gun nuts are so out of touch with why people own guns.  you are the ones living in fear.  your chances of being shot by one of these deadly assaul rifles with large capacity clips is about the same as being struck by lightning.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
Click to expand...


That's a lot of assumptions rolled up into one.  For starters, there are probably already 3M guns in the hands of criminals.  Probably more.  And if you reduced the number of "legal" guns by half, you would still have 3M+ in the hands of criminals.  So the restrictive laws would only affect law abiding people, not criminals.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't perfect.   But my point is valid.    Gun laws can affect criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.
> 
> Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not.  There are no 'assault weapons'?  I'll steal a shotgun.
> 
> That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.
> 
> But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined.  Thing is, they usually aren't.    If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.
> 
> The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late.   There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.
> 
> This is not really a good thing.
> 
> And I'll explain.   I think guns in cities is absurd.   I don't think everyone should wear a gun.   I could do it.  But I have no need for it.    I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.
> 
> I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.   Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in.   But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.
> 
> I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.
> 
> But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.
> 
> In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols.    I don't need them to hunt.    Nobody should feel they need them.
> 
> But that isn't the world we live in.    So we will continue to live in fear.   Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs.   And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.
> 
> Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.
Click to expand...


Really people in cities don't need spare tires either.  Do you carry a spare tire in your vehicle?


----------



## Wiseacre

Play nice boys, or I'll kick both of ya outta here.


----------



## beagle9

blackhawk said:


> Suppose this new assault weapon ban is passed and put into law what then? It does nothing to deal with the weapons already out there. What about weapons coming across the border? Our border is weakly secured at best now you have a ban here and that will only increase the flow across border anyone who traffics in guns will know business will be on the upswing unless there is a major push for tight border security which I highly doubt we will have a bigger problem coming across the border than we already do.


Case in point was the "Fast and Furious" debacle, where as the U.S. Government played the gun dealer in the senario created by the set up or it's allowance of the set up there in correct? Next they indirectly sold guns or allowed them to be sold to the Mexicans, who then took those guns back into Mexico for the drug cartels with us having some sort of hope in tracking them, and ultimately it all ended up killing our border agent with one of those guns, and thousands of innocent Mexican citizens I would imagine... Smart move that was huh? NOT!!!!!!

So what will underground Mexico do next in response to our problem and debate over gun control, in which I bet the world is watching with baited breath on? Maybe begin to and/or see an opportunity to flood the U.S. Border with illegal guns from around the world, to then sell to the underworld here next, just as they have been doing for so long with these drugs and such ? These lefties want to solve the drug problem in this nation by legalizing it, yet why don't they feel the same about keeping the guns in the hands of legal gun owning law abiding citizens, and this in order to limit or reduce response time in crime, while getting the illegal guns out of the hands of the bad guy's who are doing this killing ?


----------



## beagle9

Snookie said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
Click to expand...

And your exceptions to the rules comment, is what the problem with liberals or the lefties are right now. They except every excuse on earth for criminals, and then defend them to the max. Then when they (the criminals) do what they do (repeat offend) again they are excused by the softies, but this time it is done out of shame for their ignorance on the matter, because if they say it was wrong to have freed a bad perp, then it reveals their weakness and foolishness on such matters big time, and therefore it reduces their intelectual clout or prestige in which they think they have upon all issues pertaining too. Remember Michael Dekakis and that pardon or something it was in which came back to haunt him real bad in that election ? Wow I couldn't believe it back then, and I sure don't believe what is going on right now in America.


----------



## beagle9

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-ban clips are not illegal in NY (Or weren't prior to the latest regulations).  And I have dozens of friends with guns and exactly one with a couple 30 round clips (probably the only one of them who shouldn't as he's a bit mental).
> 
> 
> 
> OK so you didnt answer any questions.  Your personal experience is not really very relevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the time.   I'm a hunter and virtually all my friends hunt.   I own 8 guns myself.
> 
> And as I did answer, the clips are not illegal, so there is no reason anyone would have hid them.
> 
> Of course I realize anyone could get clips and bring them here.    What has that got to do with the discussion?    People do not need 30 round clips so most people just don't care.
> 
> The reduction from 10 to 7 is just silly though.    What is the point there?
Click to expand...

The huge problem with liberals or progressive these days, is this thinking that they know what people do or don't need even as adults in this nation anymore, and then they are trying to take something from people whom they shouldn't be trying to take from. They are complete fools is what they are, and that is sad to say about them, but they are soft and a scared people whom live in fear, and so they want our teeth removed next, because they think we will eat them shockingly enough. LOL

We won't eat no body, but that bear sure ate that liberal guy whom thought he could live with them, and yes he I think he was a tree hugging cursing liberal from hades is what he was, who thought the bears would except him as one of them or at least until the bear ate him and his lady friend next right ? There are many other accounts of such idiocy we all know about, yet we put the blinders on to all of this stuff, and then we subject our children to these idiots, whom try and brainwash our children next with all these lies.

Pit bulls are trained on purpose these days by bad people, where as they are also hurting people or even killing people, just as well as dog's when in fights, but when the ban on pit bulls was considered by various city governments, the liberals came out swinging hard. The owners of these pit's lose total control of them when they attack a human, but the legal gun owner never loses control of his weapon/gun as they do, but the owners of guns are attempted to be grouped in with the criminals by the left or libs/softies, because they have an agenda that they feel cannot be fullfilled with this having the guns remain in the hands of the many law abiding U.S. citizens over all, and if not, then why are they targetting them in these proposed bans now ? The law abiding citizens have done no wrong, but they are now equal to or being lumped in with the most henious of the criminals all of a sudden ?

What other explanation is there that is going down in this nation now ? I mean look at what the knuckle head Bloomberg is doing in New York, in which I think is sheeple test now or means testing on these issues by what he has been up to lately.


----------



## Circe

Spoonman said:


> It isn't about fear.  I have a ton of guns and not one was purchased out of fear. I like to shoot, bottom line.  do you buy your hobbies out of fear?  you anti gun nuts are so out of touch with why people own guns.  you are the ones living in fear.  your chances of being shot by one of these deadly assaul rifles with large capacity clips is about the same as being struck by lightning.




It's hard to understand why you all buy so many guns. Are you hoping for the Revolution? That's what I suspect. 

You say you just --- like to shoot. But how can you shoot 20 guns? You only have two hands, and a lot of these guns, like assault rifles, you couldn't really use two at once. 

I understand hobbies getting out of control -- it's easy to buy, hard to use up. I have too much yarn and too many books. However, when I fantasize using my yarn, I'm thinking of knitting sweaters and hats, not killing people! When I make lists of what books to read next, I'm thinking of reading pleasure, not killing people. 

I think there is a big problem with having a hobby that has at its base a desire to kill other people. 

And when you collect lots of guns, madmen are forever stealing the coolest ones and going out and shooting children and shoppers. Why tempt them?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Circe said:


> You say you just --- like to shoot. But how can you shoot 20 guns? You only have two hands, and a lot of these guns, like assault rifles, you couldn't really use two at once.



I have a stand that allows me to shoot all 20 at once.

It is a black stand and it is really scary.


----------



## beagle9

midcan5 said:


> It is sorta amazing how the so called constitutional folks find reasons and quotations from over two hundred years ago to justify in their minds activities in the modern world. Shame they don't all have muskets too. But consider why the same ideologues do not argue against woman being able to vote for surely good reasons exist and quotes can be found. Let's not mention slavery either for John C. Calhoun had wonderful lines for the good of slavery. How wonderful it was for the slaves. When you live in the past, the present becomes a bizarre chimera.  Is it any wonder the republicans, aka American conservatives, fail so badly when given the reins of power?
> 
> If there were a ban on whining, the right wing would be speechless, slippery slopes, oh, slippery slope - oh wait - let's go back to the days of great depression type crashes, pollution, lead paint, witch doctors, and toxic air for if we ban them the slippery slope begins and who knows where that might lead.


Peace only exist within pockets of time, and this to be found in societies, civilized nations or within any nation in the world for that matter. It only exist at various times in history as found in good over all percentages wise, and all one can do is yearn that they may be born into one of them pockets of time, in so that they can experience such a time as would be lived in that pocket, but if not, then they can go back and reference their history upon when a time was good & peaceful in percentages of, and then realize why it was peaceful within the time pocket for which they have referenced, then they can speak to this time period to others. They can also give reference to the time period or pocket in which it exist unto others, and this so they can become wise as to why it was peaceful and good as well.  Then they can learn how to maybe get back to a time that can add to the possibility of peace along with the current period as is lived.  If people are open to these positive pockets of peace within a world that is all but mad most of the time, then we might have a chance in re-living a time of peace by way of recipe that was used within these past pockets maybe.

Trying as you are to work your voodoo on a subject in the way that you try and work it in your opinions of, reveals your ignorance on such matters of pockets of peace being referenced within times, how they were achieved, why they were successful and etc. where as society as a percentage was more peaceful than say another pocket in time where it was *not *more peaceful, and this as we are seeing during these times in which we are all living now.

Those for whom are found whining and whining, and this within some of those whom are eternally bitter and whining on the left always, would wish or say that we have never lived in peace in America, and they abore anyone suggesting that we have ever lived in peace in America.  

They do this because of a past in which they had been born into, that may have had a different experience for them within a pocket of time, and in which may have not been so peaceful for them as seen in their eyes back then or was found within their experience of back then within a pocket of time.  

Now regardless of the percentages of those who may have had a bad experience within the fewer numbers found in the over all throughout time, in which these numbers were very low at these times considering the majority of citizens in country, they never will erase the good and peaceful times that were experienced by many people of all colors in America at any given time, and even though we were working through the problems that we had in these times, and we are still working through the problems that we have currently in order to get peace again for which was found in a pocket of time, ((they cannot rob us of our history found within the peaceful times that existed within these pockets for all involved)), and they never will.

Beware of the individuals whom want to rob us of our happyness on and on, because they feel they had been robbed of theirs somewhere within a pocket of time, in which we have worked through for all involved over time within these pockets, and at great sacrifices was it all done, yet they want to remain bitter by suggesting America can never be happy and/or was never happy or peaceful because of or maybe until what next maybe ?


----------



## The Rabbi

Circe said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about fear.  I have a ton of guns and not one was purchased out of fear. I like to shoot, bottom line.  do you buy your hobbies out of fear?  you anti gun nuts are so out of touch with why people own guns.  you are the ones living in fear.  your chances of being shot by one of these deadly assaul rifles with large capacity clips is about the same as being struck by lightning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to understand why you all buy so many guns. Are you hoping for the Revolution? That's what I suspect.
> 
> You say you just --- like to shoot. But how can you shoot 20 guns? You only have two hands, and a lot of these guns, like assault rifles, you couldn't really use two at once.
> 
> I understand hobbies getting out of control -- it's easy to buy, hard to use up. I have too much yarn and too many books. However, when I fantasize using my yarn, I'm thinking of knitting sweaters and hats, not killing people! When I make lists of what books to read next, I'm thinking of reading pleasure, not killing people.
> 
> I think there is a big problem with having a hobby that has at its base a desire to kill other people.
> 
> And when you collect lots of guns, madmen are forever stealing the coolest ones and going out and shooting children and shoppers. Why tempt them?
Click to expand...


Non gun people will never understand the hobby.  Every gun is different.  I have a shotgun that I use for trap.  Actually 2, 20ga and 12ga.  I have one rifle I might use for hunting.  One rifle I use for precision target shooting.  One rifle I just like to shoot because it's so darn fun.  I have some handguns that have historic interest, like a 1908 Webley .32 like the British police used.  Or a 1911 GI spec pistol like people carried in WW2.  I have a Mini 14 because, well, an assault rifle is always a good idea.  I have a couple of .22s for teaching new comers how to shoot, or to dispatch a critter.  Now I am wanting an 1895 Winchester in 30-40 Krag because Teddy Roosevelt had one in the Spanish American war.  And that doesn't count guns I carry for self defense on a regular basis, that I practice with in case of need.


----------



## Circe

The Rabbi said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Mini 14 because, well, an assault rifle is always a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?
> 
> We know the killer kids think so: it's their weapon of choice for mass murder, presumably because it looks like the ones in the video shooter games. Why is it always a good idea for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?


Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.


----------



## varelse

Underhill said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are always exceptions to the rules.  Nothing is absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
Click to expand...


So 100 less guns stolen and a few tens-of-thousands  victims now left without means to defend themselves?

You actually like the way that works?


----------



## KissMy

Underhill said:


> I think Biden actually got it right on this one.     It's less about the type of gun than the amount of ammo it can hold.     Even then it won't stop anything, but it could make a marginal difference that might save a few lives a year.



How do you know it won't cost a few lives a year?

*"Criminals are three times more likely to be killed by their victims than by the police."*

Why Guns Deter Criminals

"Advocates of gun control have paid for several studies, hoping to prove that guns are not useful for self-defense. But every study has shown the opposite: Handguns are used at least as often in repelling crimes as in committing them and are particularly successful as weapons of defense.

In the 1960s a New York-based antigun group printed signs for its members to post on their homes, "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE." But the signs came down and the organization withered after a large number of those homes were robbed or burglarized. On the other hand, during a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque, N. M., armed citizens patrolled the streets - and felonies dropped sharply.

Americans use firearms for protection an estimated one million times each year. Ninety-eight percent of the time, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot. But not always. Each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police.
They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year. "Criminals are three times more likely to be killed by their victims than by the police." 

Criminals may not read statistical studies, but they are generally aware of the large number of firearms in existence and of the fact that law-abiding citizens own most of them. Although violent crime and total crime reported to the police is much higher in the United States than in Western Europe, U.S. burglary rates are about the same, or lower, probably because of the deterrent effect of civilian firearms. Burglars say they spend an average of two hours "casing" a house to establish that no one is at home. They avoid late-night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot."

Interviews with convicted felons are especially revealing. A survey of 1,874 felons in 10 states found that most worry more about meeting an armed victim than about running into the police. 42 percent reported they had encountered a victim armed with a gun, and 38 percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim. A majority agreed that "a store owner who is known to keep a gun on the premises is not going to get robbed very often."


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Circe said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about fear.  I have a ton of guns and not one was purchased out of fear. I like to shoot, bottom line.  do you buy your hobbies out of fear?  you anti gun nuts are so out of touch with why people own guns.  you are the ones living in fear.  your chances of being shot by one of these deadly assaul rifles with large capacity clips is about the same as being struck by lightning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to understand why you all buy so many guns. Are you hoping for the Revolution? That's what I suspect.
> 
> You say you just --- like to shoot. But how can you shoot 20 guns? You only have two hands, and a lot of these guns, like assault rifles, you couldn't really use two at once.
> 
> I understand hobbies getting out of control -- it's easy to buy, hard to use up. I have too much yarn and too many books. However, when I fantasize using my yarn, I'm thinking of knitting sweaters and hats, not killing people! When I make lists of what books to read next, I'm thinking of reading pleasure, not killing people.
> 
> I think there is a big problem with having a hobby that has at its base a desire to kill other people.
> 
> And when you collect lots of guns, madmen are forever stealing the coolest ones and going out and shooting children and shoppers. Why tempt them?
Click to expand...


_"It's hard to understand why you all buy so many guns. Are you hoping for the Revolution? That's what I suspect. 

You say you just --- like to shoot. But how can you shoot 20 guns? You only have two hands, and a lot of these guns, like assault rifles, you couldn't really use two at once." _

Somehow I suspect you own more than one color of yarn and several diferent books even if you can't use but one at a time. How is it you can trust all those people who run around with whole bags full of clubs with the specific intent of doing violence to small innocent golf balls? 

_"It's hard to understand why you all buy so many guns..." _

It's only hard if you do not make an attempt and actual knowledge might hamper your ability to spout such nasty lies as: 
_"I think there is a big problem with having a hobby that has at its base a desire to kill other people." _


----------



## The Rabbi

Circe said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?
> 
> We know the killer kids think so: it's their weapon of choice for mass murder, presumably because it looks like the ones in the video shooter games. Why is it always a good idea for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the weapon of choice for most killer police depts.  actually the Mini has been the choice for prison systems.
> As pointed out, you never know.  People in NOLA found this out, as did some in LA.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## jtpr312

Underhill said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose this new assault weapon ban is passed and put into law what then? It does nothing to deal with the weapons already out there. What about weapons coming across the border? Our border is weakly secured at best now you have a ban here and that will only increase the flow across border anyone who traffics in guns will know business will be on the upswing unless there is a major push for tight border security which I highly doubt we will have a bigger problem coming across the border than we already do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I've read guns are a bigger problem going the other way.    The cartels buy legal guns in pro gun states, where there are virtually no limits on the numbers and type of guns purchased,  and smuggle them across the border.
Click to expand...


The Cartels do what makes them money.  It's basic economics for them.  Supply and demand.  Limit the supply here, the demand goes up, the Cartels start including firearms with their dope deliveries.  The black market dealings in firearms is a world wide business woth billions, upon billions of dollars.  America has never had to worry much about that because of our right to legaly purchase them, deny that right, and viola, you have just added more millions to the drug cartles and millions to other organized crime entities.


----------



## Underhill

varelse said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns.  laws already exist that they ignore.  passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 100 less guns stolen and a few tens-of-thousands  victims now left without means to defend themselves?
> 
> You actually like the way that works?
Click to expand...


Nope, never said that.   

I said the premise people are using to defend guns is flawed.

Ever see the picture of the guy standing out there with the Tea Partiers with a big sign reading "Get a Brain Morans".   He made the entire protest look like idiots.

That is what this kind of reasoning does for the pro gun crowd.


----------



## Underhill

Spoonman said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.
> 
> Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not.  There are no 'assault weapons'?  I'll steal a shotgun.
> 
> That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.
> 
> But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined.  Thing is, they usually aren't.    If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.
> 
> The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late.   There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.
> 
> This is not really a good thing.
> 
> And I'll explain.   I think guns in cities is absurd.   I don't think everyone should wear a gun.   I could do it.  But I have no need for it.    I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.
> 
> I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.   Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in.   But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.
> 
> I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.
> 
> But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.
> 
> In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols.    I don't need them to hunt.    Nobody should feel they need them.
> 
> But that isn't the world we live in.    So we will continue to live in fear.   Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs.   And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.
> 
> Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals are probably more determined.  they just know they can get a bigger payday for less effort and grief than a 9-5.  plust they can get welfare and other entitlements on top of it.
> 
> It isn't about fear.  I have a ton of guns and not one was purchased out of fear. I like to shoot, bottom line.  do you buy your hobbies out of fear?  you anti gun nuts are so out of touch with why people own guns.  you are the ones living in fear.  your chances of being shot by one of these deadly assaul rifles with large capacity clips is about the same as being struck by lightning.
Click to expand...


That isn't what I am talking about.   I shoot too.   Own 4 shotguns, a target rifle and a 700 I use for hunting.    I am not afraid of guns.

But clearly people who are arming themselves for the coming armageddon are.   Those who feel the need to pack a gun 18 hours a day and leave it on the nightstand at night are.   And that is sad.

I think you are taking that the wrong way.    I don't mean it to question their manhood.   But the society we live in promotes fear everywhere.    And this is sad.


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.
> 
> Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not.  There are no 'assault weapons'?  I'll steal a shotgun.
> 
> That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.
> 
> But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined.  Thing is, they usually aren't.    If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.
> 
> The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late.   There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.
> 
> This is not really a good thing.
> 
> And I'll explain.   I think guns in cities is absurd.   I don't think everyone should wear a gun.   I could do it.  But I have no need for it.    I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.
> 
> I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.   Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in.   But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.
> 
> I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.
> 
> But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.
> 
> In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols.    I don't need them to hunt.    Nobody should feel they need them.
> 
> But that isn't the world we live in.    So we will continue to live in fear.   Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs.   And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.
> 
> Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really people in cities don't need spare tires either.  Do you carry a spare tire in your vehicle?
Click to expand...


I don't live in the city.   But it's a false equivalency either way.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.
> 
> But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined.  Thing is, they usually aren't.    If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.
> 
> The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late.   There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.
> 
> This is not really a good thing.
> 
> And I'll explain.   I think guns in cities is absurd.   I don't think everyone should wear a gun.   I could do it.  But I have no need for it.    I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.
> 
> I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.   Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in.   But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.
> 
> I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.
> 
> But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.
> 
> In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols.    I don't need them to hunt.    Nobody should feel they need them.
> 
> But that isn't the world we live in.    So we will continue to live in fear.   Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs.   And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.
> 
> Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really people in cities don't need spare tires either.  Do you carry a spare tire in your vehicle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't live in the city.   But it's a false equivalency either way.
Click to expand...


It's identitcal.  But who the fuck are you to tell someone what he needs or doesn't need?


----------



## varelse

Underhill said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a bit of simple math for you.   In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen.   Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.
> 
> That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year.    That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.
> 
> Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half.   Now there are only half as many guns to steal.  Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.
> 
> So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 100 less guns stolen and a few tens-of-thousands  victims now left without means to defend themselves?
> 
> You actually like the way that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, never said that.
Click to expand...


Yes, you did. I have placed in red the text where you accepted disarming numerous victims in the hopes of making some (possibly proportionate) reduction in the supply of stolen firearms criminals may use against this (larger) number of newly disarmed victims.

Or are you recanting your support for criminalizing firearms?





> Ever see the picture of the guy standing out there with the Tea Partiers with a big sign reading "Get a Brain Morans".   He made the entire protest look like idiots.


Yes, because that was totally a real picture of an actual protester and not a bit of trolling


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really people in cities don't need spare tires either.  Do you carry a spare tire in your vehicle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in the city.   But it's a false equivalency either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's identitcal.  But who the fuck are you to tell someone what he needs or doesn't need?
Click to expand...


This is a discussion forum.   I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.

And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.   

Quick question though.   Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own?    In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times.   But billions of people around the world go through their day without one. 

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?


----------



## varelse

Underhill said:


> ... billions of people around the world go through their day without one.
> 
> Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?


In many cases, yes._

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
...
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns​_
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union


----------



## Circe

varelse said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... billions of people around the world go through their day without one.
> 
> Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?
> 
> 
> 
> In many cases, yes._
> 
> The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
> ...
> For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns​_
> Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union
Click to expand...




I agree with this: the stats are clear, a citizenry prepared and able to defend itself against criminals suffers less crime. BUT ---------- that implies as the study above says, that more of the population go armed, NOTNOTNOT that a few of the population have large stocks of military-style assault rifles. 

The hysteria for buying up huge stocks of guns and ammo now is simply leading to more theft by criminals and crazies who use them to shoot up schools -- they go for the coolest guns when they steal, and they are embarrassed for choice in a lot of these homes full of guns like an armory.

People with armories do not prevent crime, they encourage more crime by being a target for theft. 

I'd a lot rather see everyone armed at least at home but none of these people with their huge gun collections all over the house who have anger issues and paranoia and may break out at any minute like that guy in Alabama who kidnapped that kid right off the school bus and took him into his well-armed bunker full of guns after killing the bus driver.


----------



## varelse

> NOTNOTNOT that a few of the population have large stocks of military-style assault rifles.


You do realize there are already a number of hoops to jump through to get a Class III firearm, right? One can't waltz into a gunshop, put down some cash, and walk out with a fully automatic weapon.



> The hysteria for buying up huge stocks of guns and ammo now is simply leading to more theft by criminals and crazies who use them to shoot up schools


Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home? And since when is the victim of a theft responsible for what is done with their stolen property? If I steal your computer and use it to steal someone else's credit card info, the problem remains me, the thief- not you, a victim, or your computer.


> I'd a lot rather see everyone armed at least at home but none of these people with their huge gun collections all over the house who have anger issues and paranoia


Do you have anything other than broad-brush stereotypes? Please tell me what percentage of murderers, rapists, and kidnappers possess large numbers of legally-owned firearms and fit your little boogie-man picture


----------



## Underhill

varelse said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... billions of people around the world go through their day without one.
> 
> Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?
> 
> 
> 
> In many cases, yes._
> 
> The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
> ...
> For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns​_
> Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union
Click to expand...


So Norway as the model.   Got it.

Problem is, it's shit as an argument against gun control as they have very strict guns laws.   Look at Norways gun policies.  

"To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.

There are special rules for collectors of guns. They are exempt from many parts of the regulation, but, in turn, they must meet even more narrow qualifications. Collectors may purchase, but not fire without permission, all kinds of guns in their respective areas of interest, which they have defined in advance.

Ownership is regulated in paragraph 7,[1] and responsibility for issuing a gun ownership license is given to the police authority in the applicant's district.

Rifle and shotgun ownership permission can be given to "sober and responsible" persons 18 years or older. The applicant for the permission must document a need for the weapon. Two exceptions exist to this age qualification. Persons under the age of 18, but over 16 may apply for rifle or shotgun ownership licence with the consent of parents or guardian. For handguns, the lowest ownership age is 21 with no exceptions allowed. For inherited weapons, it is up to the local police chief to make a decision based on the individual facts of the case.

An applicant must have a clean police record in order to obtain an ownership license."

Gun politics in Norway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would be in favor of all of that.   I kind of doubt many of you would.

And there's more too.   They require by law a gun safe bolted in place and can require home inspections....


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in the city.   But it's a false equivalency either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's identitcal.  But who the fuck are you to tell someone what he needs or doesn't need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a discussion forum.   I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.
> 
> And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.
> 
> Quick question though.   Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own?    In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times.   But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.
> 
> Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?
Click to expand...


Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights?  Is that your question?


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's identitcal.  But who the fuck are you to tell someone what he needs or doesn't need?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a discussion forum.   I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.
> 
> And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.
> 
> Quick question though.   Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own?    In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times.   But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.
> 
> Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights?  Is that your question?
Click to expand...


Yes.   You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?


----------



## martybegan

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a discussion forum.   I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.
> 
> And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.
> 
> Quick question though.   Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own?    In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times.   But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.
> 
> Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights?  Is that your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.   You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?
Click to expand...


Then the pity is on them. Alot of other countries also do not use juries, or have protections against search and seizure. Also alot of them base thier freedom of speech on law, not on a consitutional right. Thus the government can vote your speech rights away. 

I like our system better. If you don't, then try to revoke the amendments you dont like.


----------



## Underhill

martybegan said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights?  Is that your question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the pity is on them. Alot of other countries also do not use juries, or have protections against search and seizure. Also alot of them base thier freedom of speech on law, not on a consitutional right. Thus the government can vote your speech rights away.
> 
> I like our system better. If you don't, then try to revoke the amendments you dont like.
Click to expand...


That is what the discussion is about.

And I find it funny that those against gun restrictions are using Norway as an example.

Funny mainly because I agree.  Norway is actually the model for gun ownership.   It is one of the safest places in the world.   Everyone is free to own guns with proper regulations in place.    I have no problem with that.   

But what it is not is an example of how if only everyone carried a gun around we would all be safer.    It isn't true and if anything makes clear the exact opposite is the case.


----------



## Underhill

varelse said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... billions of people around the world go through their day without one.
> 
> Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?
> 
> 
> 
> In many cases, yes._
> 
> The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
> ...
> For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns​_
> Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union
Click to expand...


Oh and one more small details.   Every country listed, including Sweden and Denmark, while having higher murder rates than Norway, all have lower rates than here in the US.

I'm just saying...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> The hysteria for buying up huge stocks of guns and ammo now is simply leading to more theft by criminals and crazies who use them to shoot up schools


You cannot show this to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter

M14 Shooter said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.
Click to expand...

No response?


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a discussion forum.   I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.
> 
> And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.
> 
> Quick question though.   Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own?    In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times.   But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.
> 
> Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights?  Is that your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.   You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?
Click to expand...


OK, the answer to your question is that people are better off living under governments that recognize fundamental rights for their citizens and bind themselves to them.  Examples where that wasn't the case--Cuba, Russia, etc--tend to be examples of gov't tyranny and oppression.
Yes, most of the world does not enjoy rights of freedom of religion (Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc), free speech (China etc), assembly, security from unreasonable searches and seizures etc etc.  I woudl never want to live in a place where gov't tyranny is the order of the day. If you are fine with it, North Korea would like to hear from you.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the pity is on them. Alot of other countries also do not use juries, or have protections against search and seizure. Also alot of them base thier freedom of speech on law, not on a consitutional right. Thus the government can vote your speech rights away.
> 
> I like our system better. If you don't, then try to revoke the amendments you dont like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what the discussion is about.
> 
> And I find it funny that those against gun restrictions are using Norway as an example.
> 
> Funny mainly because I agree.  Norway is actually the model for gun ownership.   It is one of the safest places in the world.   Everyone is free to own guns with proper regulations in place.    I have no problem with that.
> 
> But what it is not is an example of how if only everyone carried a gun around we would all be safer.    It isn't true and if anything makes clear the exact opposite is the case.
Click to expand...


Norway is the example because we knows Norway eliminated mass shootings, right?
2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RightNorLeft

I believe that less guns wont mean less crime. Less guns does not mean less criminals or less individuals with the mindset to kill others.
  The worst loss of life in a school massacre was not done with guns...but by a bomb.

Worst School Massacre Was Bombing in 1927

   I own handguns and I own two combat shotguns..I do not hunt, they are for self defense if needed. I am for gun ownership and have owned guns my entire adult life. Having said that I wouldnt shed tears if there was a ban on assault weapons and mandatory universal background checks.

  If you look at the interactive map New Jersey has some of the most restrictive gun purchase laws in America and they are in the second to highest category for murder by gun. Banning guns will not ban crime or murder. We need to get to the source of the mentality that is causing especially american kids to mass murder people. I think there are many in denial as to what the real causes are but its easier to just blame gun ownership.
Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights?  Is that your question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, the answer to your question is that people are better off living under governments that recognize fundamental rights for their citizens and bind themselves to them.  Examples where that wasn't the case--Cuba, Russia, etc--tend to be examples of gov't tyranny and oppression.
> Yes, most of the world does not enjoy rights of freedom of religion (Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc), free speech (China etc), assembly, security from unreasonable searches and seizures etc etc.  I woudl never want to live in a place where gov't tyranny is the order of the day. If you are fine with it, North Korea would like to hear from you.
Click to expand...


that makes no sense.    There are plenty of places around the world where people live in relative freedom and do not take owning an arsenal as a fundamental right.


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the pity is on them. Alot of other countries also do not use juries, or have protections against search and seizure. Also alot of them base thier freedom of speech on law, not on a consitutional right. Thus the government can vote your speech rights away.
> 
> I like our system better. If you don't, then try to revoke the amendments you dont like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the discussion is about.
> 
> And I find it funny that those against gun restrictions are using Norway as an example.
> 
> Funny mainly because I agree.  Norway is actually the model for gun ownership.   It is one of the safest places in the world.   Everyone is free to own guns with proper regulations in place.    I have no problem with that.
> 
> But what it is not is an example of how if only everyone carried a gun around we would all be safer.    It isn't true and if anything makes clear the exact opposite is the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Norway is the example because we knows Norway eliminated mass shootings, right?
> 2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Obviously not.   Norway is the example because they allow their people to own guns in a reasonably cautious manner.    And their crime rates reflect this...


----------



## Circe

M14 Shooter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No response?
Click to expand...


To what?

Two words?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> No response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To what?
> 
> Two words?
Click to expand...

No.   My answer to your question (included in the quote).


----------



## Circe

varelse said:


> You do realize there are already a number of hoops to jump through to get a Class III firearm, right? One can't waltz into a gunshop, put down some cash, and walk out with a fully automatic weapon.



No, you have to waltz in, pay something, waltz back in a few days later and pay the rest, waltz out with a semi-automatic rampage killer's friend the AR-15, load it, waltz home and kill your mother, waltz out to the mall and shoot it up, killing lots of shoppers who run screaming and waltzing in terror in all directions.




> Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home?



Adam Lanza was the latest, I think, unless the latest office shooter stole his, this week. Adam Lanza stole four guns as soon as he killed his mother, killed lots of little kids and teachers with them.

Let's see, the most recent one before that was the guy at the mall in October in Oregon, stole his guns incl. the AR-15 and went to the mall, shot it up, killed people.

It's very common. The ones who don't steal them do a lot of waltzing into gun shows and gun stores with a psychotic look on their faces but they are sold the guns anyway, no problemo.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home?
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza was the latest, I think, unless the latest office shooter stole his, this week. Adam Lanza stole four guns as soon as he killed his mother, killed lots of little kids and teachers with them.
Click to expand...

4 guns is "in bulk"?   That's laughable.
And tell us:
He killed his mother and stole her guns - what sort of gun control will stop something like that?



> The ones who don't steal them do a lot of waltzing into gun shows and gun stores with a psychotic look on their faces but they are sold the guns anyway, no problemo.


That's because what you think is a "psychotic look:" is not sufficient to deny someone their rights.


----------



## Circe

M14 Shooter said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To what?
> 
> Two words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.   My answer to your question (included in the quote).
Click to expand...


As Hamlet said, "Words, words, words."

If you can't talk, I can't answer.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> To what?
> Two words?
> 
> 
> 
> No.   My answer to your question (included in the quote).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Hamlet said, "Words, words, words."
> If you can't talk, I can't answer.
Click to expand...

YOU asked:


> *Quote: Originally Posted by Circe  *
> Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?


I responded:


> Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.


Hopefully that's clear enough for you to respond.


----------



## Circe

M14 Shooter said:


> Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home.
> 
> Adam Lanza was the latest, I think, unless the latest office shooter stole his, this week. Adam Lanza stole four guns as soon as he killed his mother, killed lots of little kids and teachers with them.
> 
> 4 guns is "in bulk"?   That's laughable.
> And tell us:
> He killed his mother and stole her guns - what sort of gun control will stop something like that?



Well, you asked what schools were shot up with firearms stolen in bulk, and that was all the bulk this skinny little crazy guy could carry! He was carrying four guns and several high-capacity magazines and ammo for the pistols, how much did you want him to carry in there? He carried as many as the Columbine kids carried at once, he was seriously loaded down. I think you are asking a lot of a little schizo if you want him to carry more than four guns at once and enough ammo to take on General Patton!



> The ones who don't steal them do a lot of waltzing into gun shows and gun stores with a psychotic look on their faces but they are sold the guns anyway, no problemo.
> 
> That's because what you think is a "psychotic look:" is not sufficient to deny someone their rights.



No, nor any amount of psychotic behavior, including court actions, therapists, meds, previous attacks, school expulsions, everything. Gun shops could get a lot more business if they put up signs saying "PSYCHOS WELCOME -- Y'ALL COME ON IN!"


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home.
> 
> Adam Lanza was the latest, I think, unless the latest office shooter stole his, this week. Adam Lanza stole four guns as soon as he killed his mother, killed lots of little kids and teachers with them.
> 
> 4 guns is "in bulk"?   That's laughable.
> And tell us:
> He killed his mother and stole her guns - what sort of gun control will stop something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you asked what schools were shot up with firearms stolen in bulk
Click to expand...

I did not.   I laughed at your idea that 4 guns is "in bulk" and then asked you a question.

You did not asnwer the question, so I will ask again:
He killed his mother and stole her guns - what sort of gun control will stop something like that?



> That's because what you think is a "psychotic look:" is not sufficient to deny someone their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> No, nor any amount of psychotic behavior, including court actions, therapists, meds, previous attacks...
Click to expand...

This is either a lie or abject ignorance, as court actions and previous attacks, presuming that either/both resulted in the relevant judicial finding, is sufficient to deprive someone of their right to arms.


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No response?
Click to expand...


I would say by that logic everyone should live in a bunker and never leave their home.

The chances of armed robbery or armed assault is extraordinarily low.   It would be more logical to say you are going to put a full roll-cage in your car and drive around in a helmet and fire suit.   Because the chances of a car accident are much much higher than the odds of needing that gun for the vast majority of Americans.  

I'm not saying self defense is a bad thing, only that people seem to take it way beyond the logical allocation of energy.   It would be like covering your house with lightning rods because in 1832 a barn burned down on the other end of the county...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> No response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say by that logic everyone should live in a bunker and never leave their home.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur.   These are passive defenses.



> The chances of armed robbery or armed assault is extraordinarily low.


And yet, it happens enough that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted in an attempt to decrease it.  Can't have ot both ways.

Fact of the matter is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow; it is always better to have and not need then need and not have.


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No response?
> 
> 
> 
> I would say by that logic everyone should live in a bunker and never leave their home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur.   These are passive defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chances of armed robbery or armed assault is extraordinarily low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, it happens enough that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted in an attempt to decrease it.  Can't have ot both ways.
> 
> Fact of the matter is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow; it is always better to have and not need then need and not have.
Click to expand...


I used to use that line when I sold insurance.    Problem is, it's only true up to a certain point in virtually every situation.   

It's true having some insurance, whatever kind that is, makes sense.    But have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say by that logic everyone should live in a bunker and never leave their home.
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.   These are passive defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chances of armed robbery or armed assault is extraordinarily low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, it happens enough that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted in an attempt to decrease it.  Can't have ot both ways.
> 
> Fact of the matter is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow; it is always better to have and not need then need and not have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to use that line when I sold insurance.    Problem is, it's only true up to a certain point in virtually every situation.
> 
> It's true having some insurance, whatever kind that is, makes sense.    But have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?
Click to expand...

Yep - and you cannot show how applies here, especially once you concede, as you have,  the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.   These are passive defenses.
> 
> 
> And yet, it happens enough that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted in an attempt to decrease it.  Can't have ot both ways.
> 
> Fact of the matter is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow; it is always better to have and not need then need and not have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to use that line when I sold insurance.    Problem is, it's only true up to a certain point in virtually every situation.
> 
> It's true having some insurance, whatever kind that is, makes sense.    But have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep - and you cannot show how applies here, especially once you concede, as you have,  the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.
Click to expand...


I already have.   Tell me, if you please, what is the advantage of 50 guns vs. 10.    You may be able to show a marginal advantage.    You can specifically have a gun for every varmint and critter within a thousand miles of your home?   

But picking 1 is tough.    A long rifle for self defense?   A bird-gun for shooting coyotes at 200 yards?   How well would they interchange?   

So there is a huge advantage to owning 5 guns over 1.    There would be some advantage in having 10 guns over 5.    But obviously at some point beyond that (probably not all that far beyond that), the advantage becomes marginal.   

I have 8 guns.    4 of which are specifically for trap (my son and I shoot).   With those 8 guns I can do anything I would ever want to do with a gun.   That includes elk, bear, deer and turkey hunting.   My 870 even makes a pretty good defensive gun.   

So yes, the law of diminishing returns applies.    It applies for virtually everything (thus it being a law).


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to use that line when I sold insurance.    Problem is, it's only true up to a certain point in virtually every situation.
> 
> It's true having some insurance, whatever kind that is, makes sense.    But have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - and you cannot show how applies here, especially once you concede, as you have,  the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already have.
Click to expand...

You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?
Must have missed it - what's the post number?


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - and you cannot show how applies here, especially once you concede, as you have,  the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?
> Must have missed it - what's the post number?
Click to expand...


When did I claim that?

But you and I both know that an assault weapon makes for a shit self defense gun in most cases.   My 870 is better in almost every situation.   A pistol might be preferable to the 870 up close (in a confined area).     The only advantage to the assault rife is if you happen to have multiple targets at a intermediate to long range.   

How often does that happen to the average homeowner?   Statistically it's gotta be damn close to 0.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?
> Must have missed it - what's the post number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I claim that?
Click to expand...

I think you need to look back into the coversation.

-The question was why was an assault rifle alwys a good idea.
-My response was that you do not know what will happnen tomrrow, and that it is better to have and not need than need and not have.
-You counter this with the idea of law of diminishing returns, and stated that you had already demonstrated how that law applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.

So, where did you do that?


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?
> Must have missed it - what's the post number?
> 
> 
> 
> When did I claim that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you need to look back into the coversation.
> 
> -The question was why was an assault rifle alwys a good idea.
> -My response was that you do not know what will happnen tomrrow, and that it is better to have and not need than need and not have.
> -You counter this with the idea of law of diminishing returns, and stated that you had already demonstrated how that law applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.
> 
> So, where did you do that?
Click to expand...


When I explained why owning an arsenal is not a rational response to self defense earlier in the thread.   It was not part of our conversation currently.    

I didn't call out the law specifically.   But I already talked about it.

But now you are saying something different.   You are taking the initial question and trying to apply my last statement to a comment made 15 post earlier...


----------



## Underhill

> "You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?"



This is what I never said.   

Owning an arsenal is an example of the law of diminishing returns.   Owning one assault rifle is fine, but there are few (none come to mind) legal things I couldn't do better with another gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I claim that?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to look back into the coversation.
> 
> -The question was why was an assault rifle alwys a good idea.
> -My response was that you do not know what will happnen tomrrow, and that it is better to have and not need than need and not have.
> -You counter this with the idea of law of diminishing returns, and stated that you had already demonstrated how that law applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.
> 
> So, where did you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I explained why owning an arsenal is not a rational response to self defense earlier in the thread.   It was not part of our conversation currently.
Click to expand...

That's not the discussion here. 
The discussion here is why it is a good idea to have an assault rifle.
My position is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow, and as it is always better to have and not need then need and not have, there is good reason to have an assault rifle.
Do you care to counter that position, or not?

Note:
The poster who asked the questiion does now know what assault rifles are or how they differ from 'assault weapons', so for the purposes of this discussion the terms can be used interchangeably.


----------



## Politico

Underhill said:


> But you and I both know that an assault weapon makes for a shit self defense gun in most cases.   My 870 is better in almost every situation.   A pistol might be preferable to the 870 up close (in a confined area).



Then buy a shotgun or pistol and keep your nose out of other people's business. Problem solved.


----------



## PaulS1950

These semi-auto rifles that are being called "assault weapuns-guns" are used in competition target shooting, pest control, defense of businesses and livelihoods. Are they the first weapon that I would choose? NO! but they do have a place on the list of guns to own.

1. 12 ga pump - home self defense, bird hunting, skeet and trap shooting (there are better choices for this one), small game hunting, large game hunting at shorter ranges (there are better choices for this one)
2. .22 rimfire bolt action rifle and revolver. Will generally fire any 22 short, long and long rifle ammo. Great for target shooting and practice, small game hunting, pest control.
3. magnum revolver - defensive carry concealed, hunting medium and non-dangerous game, target practice and competition, defensive carry while "in the field" (fishing, hiking, or hunting)
4. Bolt action rifle - hunting, target practice, competition. Best when it utilizes a standard military cartridge because the ammo is available widely.
5. Semi-auto pistols - more easily concealable for legal carry, higher capacity magazines make them better against small groups of attackers.
6. Semi-auto rifles - particular types of competition require the use of "military" style weapons and the cartridge generally determines the ranges that targets are placed. 308 and 3006 for out to 1000 meters, 6mm for out to 600 meters, .223 (5.56mm) for out to 300 meters.
These rifles are also used to hunt game, control pests and informal target practice.
When dispatching ferral pigs that tear up your land and ruin crops you need a high capacity magazine.


----------



## Snookie

What a bunch of looney Bambi killers.


----------



## martybegan

Snookie said:


> What a bunch of looney Bambi killers.



it was Bambi's Mom that was killed.

And she tastes great in a stew served over rice.


----------



## The Rabbi

Politico said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you and I both know that an assault weapon makes for a shit self defense gun in most cases.   My 870 is better in almost every situation.   A pistol might be preferable to the 870 up close (in a confined area).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then buy a shotgun or pistol and keep your nose out of other people's business. Problem solved.
Click to expand...


All of this goes along the lines of "no one needs X for Y."  Screw that logic.  We dont apply it anywhere else, why here?  Because people get killed with guns?  People get killed with cars, rat poison, ladders, and a bunch of other shit too.  It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make.  And screw that.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you and I both know that an assault weapon makes for a shit self defense gun in most cases. My 870 is better in almost every situation. A pistol might be preferable to the 870 up close (in a confined area).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then buy a shotgun or pistol and keep your nose out of other people's business. Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this goes along the lines of "no one needs X for Y." Screw that logic. We dont apply it anywhere else, why here? Because people get killed with guns? People get killed with cars, rat poison, ladders, and a bunch of other shit too. It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make. And screw that.
Click to expand...

 
It's called "Public Safety" for the good of the "Public Interest".

I would rather call 911,
Rather than using a gun.


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then buy a shotgun or pistol and keep your nose out of other people's business. Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this goes along the lines of "no one needs X for Y." Screw that logic. We dont apply it anywhere else, why here? Because people get killed with guns? People get killed with cars, rat poison, ladders, and a bunch of other shit too. It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make. And screw that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called "Public Safety" for the good of the "Public Interest".
> 
> I would rather call 911,
> Rather than using a gun.
Click to expand...


But it isn't.  Many more people are killed by cars.  But we dont regulate cars like that.  We dont call for banning SUVs.
And no proposal floated would make anyone any safer.  The opposite.  With 300M guns in circulation criminals will have them and honest citizens will be disarmed.

Call 911.  When seconds count police are minutes away.


----------



## Circe

The Rabbi said:


> It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make.  And screw that.



Too many are choosing to make hamburger of little kid's heads with their assault weapons, and that's a choice that needs controlling.


----------



## Snookie

Because more people are killed by cars is no excuse for not having more gun control.

Two different subjects altogether.


----------



## martybegan

Circe said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make.  And screw that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too many are choosing to make hamburger of little kid's heads with their assault weapons, and that's a choice that needs controlling.
Click to expand...


it was one guy. How does that become "too many"

Lets do some math:

20 kids killed by a semi auto. Lets assume conservatively a 1st-6th grade population of 20 million.

# of school days in a year around 180. So:  on that day your chance was 20/20 million or 1 in a million. now add in the fact that in a year on the other 180 days, no children were killed at school by a semi auto, that puts your chances in the billion to one ratio.

Want to know your chance of having your 1st grade to 6th grader die in a car crash in the same year? Bigger than a billion to one, I assure you.


----------



## PaulS1950

Snookie,
You call 911, and then spend thirty seconds talking to someone, then wait two to ninety minutes for the police to arrive.
It takes less than 10 seconds for a robber to get into your home, so while you are telling the emergency operator that he has broken into your home you are beaten, the phone is turned off, unplugged - or just ripped out of the wall and in the next 90 seconds he has taken anything of value in your home.

when seconds count the police are just minutes away.

It is not the fault of the police - they have large areas to cover. It is also not their job to protect individuals. They protect the general population - not you. The protect by solving the crime after it happens - not by stopping it as it happens. 

So, you go ahead and call 911, and wait for the police.
I will call 911 after I arm myself - and when he breaks in I will hold him for the police or protect myself as the case needs.


----------



## Underhill

PaulS1950 said:


> Snookie,
> You call 911, and then spend thirty seconds talking to someone, then wait two to ninety minutes for the police to arrive.
> It takes less than 10 seconds for a robber to get into your home, so while you are telling the emergency operator that he has broken into your home you are beaten, the phone is turned off, unplugged - or just ripped out of the wall and in the next 90 seconds he has taken anything of value in your home.
> 
> when seconds count the police are just minutes away.
> 
> It is not the fault of the police - they have large areas to cover. It is also not their job to protect individuals. They protect the general population - not you. The protect by solving the crime after it happens - not by stopping it as it happens.
> 
> So, you go ahead and call 911, and wait for the police.
> I will call 911 after I arm myself - and when he breaks in I will hold him for the police or protect myself as the case needs.



Or escalate the situation and turn a robbery into a shootout...  Or shoot yourself in the foot pulling out your pistol in the dark...   Or shoot the neighbor who accidentally went in the wrong house.     

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to defend yourself.   And perhaps it's different if you live in a higher crime area.   But where I live, the odds of my house getting robbed is roughly equal with the odds of a hidden volcano in upstate ny wiping us out...   We've had 1 house robbery in the county in the last 5 years.    A few camps they knew would be empty...

It's just not worth it to worry about it.   I keep my guns locked away.


----------



## The Rabbi

Circe said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make.  And screw that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too many are choosing to make hamburger of little kid's heads with their assault weapons, and that's a choice that needs controlling.
Click to expand...


Really?  How many is that?  You realize kids have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting killed with an assault weapon, right?  You also realize there are about 30M of the things floating around, right?  I personally have several, including a full auto, and no child has ever been killed with them.


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this goes along the lines of "no one needs X for Y." Screw that logic. We dont apply it anywhere else, why here? Because people get killed with guns? People get killed with cars, rat poison, ladders, and a bunch of other shit too. It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make. And screw that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called "Public Safety" for the good of the "Public Interest".
> 
> I would rather call 911,
> Rather than using a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it isn't.  Many more people are killed by cars.  But we dont regulate cars like that.  We dont call for banning SUVs.
Click to expand...


Of course we regulate cars.   That's nonsense.   

We have safety regulations, police check points, safety inspections, speed traps and a hundred other rules and regs that mandate what you can drive, how fast and in what condition you can drive in.

Not to mention we regulate who can drive....


----------



## PaulS1950

A robbery is a theft under the threat of or application of violence. The escalation would be to stand there talking on the phone after he told you to hang up.
It is pretty hard to shoot yourself in the foot grabbing a shotgun and I know my neighbors - the knock before comming in - they don't bust the door down or break a window to come say hello.
I live in a small town in a farming community and we have three mexican gangs in the area. Violence against the citizens is not a real problem compared to the big city that I left but the violence can spill over from the gangs into people's lives. I haven't been here six months yet but I know at least three of my neighbors have guns at home. I feel very welcome and safe.


----------



## Snookie

PaulS1950 said:


> Snookie,
> You call 911, and then spend thirty seconds talking to someone, then wait two to ninety minutes for the police to arrive.
> It takes less than 10 seconds for a robber to get into your home, so while you are telling the emergency operator that he has broken into your home you are beaten, the phone is turned off, unplugged - or just ripped out of the wall and in the next 90 seconds he has taken anything of value in your home.
> 
> when seconds count the police are just minutes away.
> 
> It is not the fault of the police - they have large areas to cover. It is also not their job to protect individuals. They protect the general population - not you. The protect by solving the crime after it happens - not by stopping it as it happens.
> 
> So, you go ahead and call 911, and wait for the police.
> I will call 911 after I arm myself - and when he breaks in I will hold him for the police or protect myself as the case needs.


 
I fear no evil.  I walk the dangerous streets at night, unarmed.  It's attitude.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called "Public Safety" for the good of the "Public Interest".
> 
> I would rather call 911,
> Rather than using a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't.  Many more people are killed by cars.  But we dont regulate cars like that.  We dont call for banning SUVs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we regulate cars.   That's nonsense.
> 
> We have safety regulations, police check points, safety inspections, speed traps and a hundred other rules and regs that mandate what you can drive, how fast and in what condition you can drive in.
> 
> Not to mention we regulate who can drive....
Click to expand...


We dont regulate cars like that, I said.  In that sense we regulate guns the same way.  There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc.  But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents.  Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers.  We'll ban it.


----------



## SayMyName

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?



I don't think many of us, if not most, that do own firearms have any qualms about tighter enforcement of keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and the felon. Background checks that are universal do not harm the law abiding citizen owner.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called "Public Safety" for the good of the "Public Interest".
> 
> I would rather call 911,
> Rather than using a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't.  Many more people are killed by cars.  But we dont regulate cars like that.  We dont call for banning SUVs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we regulate cars.   That's nonsense.
> 
> We have safety regulations, police check points, safety inspections, speed traps and a hundred other rules and regs that mandate what you can drive, how fast and in what condition you can drive in.
> 
> Not to mention we regulate who can drive....
Click to expand...

None of whch appliy to buying a car, owning a car, keeping it in your home, and operating it on private property.
Apples and apples, please.


----------



## Trajan

I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..


but, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Trajan said:


> I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..
> But, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?


Not just that, but complete the transfer thru a dealer.


----------



## KissMy

Trajan said:


> I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..
> 
> but, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?



Just send the state a bill of sale or transfer just like you do a car. The state should maintain a list of weapons banned people on their website just as they do sex offenders.


----------



## AquaAthena

Trajan said:


> I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..
> 
> 
> but, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?



Right! I like the "idea" of background checks, but what good would they do and at what cost? There is no evidence to support background checks will stop mass murderers that I have seen. 

I do know this: I would choose to be in a "gun legal" mall, than a gun free mall.


----------



## Spoonman

KissMy said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..
> 
> but, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just send the state a bill of sale or transfer just like you do a car. The state should maintain a list of weapons banned people on their website just as they do sex offenders.
Click to expand...

why?   99.9999% of all gun legal gun owners have commited no crimes?  why treat them like sex offenders?   I mean really, how absurd is that?


----------



## jtpr312

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the answer to your question is that people are better off living under governments that recognize fundamental rights for their citizens and bind themselves to them.  Examples where that wasn't the case--Cuba, Russia, etc--tend to be examples of gov't tyranny and oppression.
> Yes, most of the world does not enjoy rights of freedom of religion (Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc), free speech (China etc), assembly, security from unreasonable searches and seizures etc etc.  I woudl never want to live in a place where gov't tyranny is the order of the day. If you are fine with it, North Korea would like to hear from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that makes no sense.    There are plenty of places around the world where people live in relative freedom and do not take owning an arsenal as a fundamental right.
Click to expand...


So if there are plents of places you won't mind giving us some examples right?


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't.  Many more people are killed by cars.  But we dont regulate cars like that.  We dont call for banning SUVs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we regulate cars.   That's nonsense.
> 
> We have safety regulations, police check points, safety inspections, speed traps and a hundred other rules and regs that mandate what you can drive, how fast and in what condition you can drive in.
> 
> Not to mention we regulate who can drive....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dont regulate cars like that, I said.  In that sense we regulate guns the same way.  There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc.  But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents.  Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers.  We'll ban it.
Click to expand...


No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we regulate cars.   That's nonsense.
> 
> We have safety regulations, police check points, safety inspections, speed traps and a hundred other rules and regs that mandate what you can drive, how fast and in what condition you can drive in.
> 
> Not to mention we regulate who can drive....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We dont regulate cars like that, I said.  In that sense we regulate guns the same way.  There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc.  But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents.  Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers.  We'll ban it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.
Click to expand...

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont regulate cars like that, I said.  In that sense we regulate guns the same way.  There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc.  But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents.  Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers.  We'll ban it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
> I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
> Apples tro apples, please.
Click to expand...


Hell you don't need a drivers license to drive a car on private property,  you don't even need liability insurance


----------



## M14 Shooter

bigrebnc1775 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.
> 
> 
> 
> I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
> I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
> Apples tro apples, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell you don't need a drivers license to drive a car on private property,  you don't even need liability insurance
Click to expand...

You do not need a license to buy, own or store a car either -- and when you lose your driver's license, absent it being impounded for evidence or whatnot, you keep your car.

There are a gazillion reasons why those who want more gun control don't want to use cars as an example as to how we shoucl/could regulate guns; they don't realize it until it is explained, and they you don't hear anything else from them.


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont regulate cars like that, I said.  In that sense we regulate guns the same way.  There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc.  But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents.  Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers.  We'll ban it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
> I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
> Apples tro apples, please.
Click to expand...


I didn't bring up the example.  And no it isn't perfect.   But clearly the point is valid.   We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain.   Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.   

That is obviously a form of regulation.   And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns.   And of course, we do.


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
> I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
> Apples tro apples, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Hell you don't need a drivers license to drive a car on private property,  you don't even need liability insurance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not need a license to buy, own or store a car either -- and when you lose your driver's license, absent it being impounded for evidence or whatnot, you keep your car.
> 
> There are a gazillion reasons why those who want more gun control don't want to use cars as an example as to how we shoucl/could regulate guns; they don't realize it until it is explained, and they you don't hear anything else from them.
Click to expand...


Kinda like when you guys used Norway as an example of a gun filled society with extremely low crime...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.
> 
> 
> 
> I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
> I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
> Apples tro apples, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't bring up the example.  And no it isn't perfect.   But clearly the point is valid.   We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to with, and has no bearing on, private ownership and use of firearms outside the public domain.
The example here is relevant only in regards to use of firearms on public property; it does not in any way carry over to the regulation of fireams that are NOT used on public property.


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.
> 
> 
> 
> I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
> I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
> Apples tro apples, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up the example.  And no it isn't perfect.   But clearly the point is valid.   We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain.   Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.
> 
> That is obviously a form of regulation.   And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns.   And of course, we do.
Click to expand...


We do not regulate cars the same way.  that is obvious.  If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced.  If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced.  But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers.  Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents.  But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it.  Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.


----------



## Underhill

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
> I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
> Apples tro apples, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up the example.  And no it isn't perfect.   But clearly the point is valid.   We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain.   Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.
> 
> That is obviously a form of regulation.   And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns.   And of course, we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not regulate cars the same way.  that is obvious.  If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced.  If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced.  But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers.  Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents.  But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it.  Or whatever.
> They are not alike at all.
Click to expand...


Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.  

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously.   But the goal is the same.  The cause is the same.    No example is perfect.

It just doesn't matter.    Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything on the issue.   Both sides have legitimate complaints and defenses.   And both sides think the other is off their rocker.    It's a matter of perspective. 

I am on the fence.   

I don't think anyone should take away guns.  Even if it has worked in other places (and the evidence is murky either way) I doubt it would here.    There are too many of them.

On the other hand I think there are ways to make them safer.   Mandatory gun locks.  Mandatory training.   Taking the handcuffs off those who are supposed to enforce current laws.    These things could be done without infringing on anyone's rights.   And while I'm sure many would still be against them, I couldn't care less.  

These are things all gun owners should be doing anyway.  

Things like limiting clip sizes to 10 are fine by me, but would have a negligible impact so I'm not going to get too worked up about them either way.   

I would love to see a push by the people for less fear based reporting, less sensationalist news coverage.   But it seems unlikely.   The most watched news channel by a wide margin is among the most guilty.   It seems to attract viewers so of course they all do it. 

But everyone needs to calm the fuck down.    The world probably isn't going to end tomorrow and chances are, if it does, your fucked anyway.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up the example.  And no it isn't perfect.   But clearly the point is valid.   We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain.   Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.
> 
> That is obviously a form of regulation.   And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns.   And of course, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not regulate cars the same way.  that is obvious.  If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced.  If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced.  But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers.  Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents.  But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it.  Or whatever.
> They are not alike at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that example is perfect.
> 
> As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.
> 
> The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.
> 
> Now there are differences obviously.   But the goal is the same.  The cause is the same.    No example is perfect.
> 
> It just doesn't matter.    Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything on the issue.   Both sides have legitimate complaints and defenses.   And both sides think the other is off their rocker.    It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> I am on the fence.
> 
> I don't think anyone should take away guns.  Even if it has worked in other places (and the evidence is murky either way) I doubt it would here.    There are too many of them.
> 
> On the other hand I think there are ways to make them safer.   Mandatory gun locks.  Mandatory training.   Taking the handcuffs off those who are supposed to enforce current laws.    These things could be done without infringing on anyone's rights.   And while I'm sure many would still be against them, I couldn't care less.
> 
> These are things all gun owners should be doing anyway.
> 
> Things like limiting clip sizes to 10 are fine by me, but would have a negligible impact so I'm not going to get too worked up about them either way.
> 
> I would love to see a push by the people for less fear based reporting, less sensationalist news coverage.   But it seems unlikely.   The most watched news channel by a wide margin is among the most guilty.   It seems to attract viewers so of course they all do it.
> 
> But everyone needs to calm the fuck down.    The world probably isn't going to end tomorrow and chances are, if it does, your fucked anyway.
Click to expand...


Should cops also have locks on their service weapons?
Should cops be limited to magazine capacity


----------



## The Rabbi

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up the example.  And no it isn't perfect.   But clearly the point is valid.   We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain.   Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.
> 
> That is obviously a form of regulation.   And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns.   And of course, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not regulate cars the same way.  that is obvious.  If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced.  If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced.  But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers.  Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents.  But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it.  Or whatever.
> They are not alike at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that example is perfect.
> 
> As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.
> 
> The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That's a foolish analogy. If the bumper is too tall, the car won't be made.  The issue is problemmatic to the car, no matter who is driving it.  With the gun, the gun poses no danger at all.  The person operating it poses the danger.  When a person operating a car poses a danger, we take away his license.  We don't ban the type of car he drives.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up the example.  And no it isn't perfect.   But clearly the point is valid.   We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain.   Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.
> 
> That is obviously a form of regulation.   And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns.   And of course, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not regulate cars the same way.  that is obvious.  If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced.  If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced.  But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers.  Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents.  But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it.  Or whatever.
> They are not alike at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that example is perfect.
> 
> As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.
> 
> The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.
> 
> Now there are differences obviously.   But the goal is the same.  The cause is the same.    No example is perfect.
Click to expand...

The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.


----------



## The Rabbi

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not regulate cars the same way.  that is obvious.  If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced.  If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced.  But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers.  Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents.  But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it.  Or whatever.
> They are not alike at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that example is perfect.
> 
> As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.
> 
> The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.
> 
> Now there are differences obviously.   But the goal is the same.  The cause is the same.    No example is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.
Click to expand...

One also deals with the fitness of the item for service under normal operating conditions, and the other with misuse of the item.  Why blame the item if someone misuses it?  We don't do that with any other good that I am aware of.


----------



## Snookie

Assault rifles are for killing people.  They are a weapon of warfare.

Only congress can declare war.


----------



## The Rabbi

Snookie said:


> Assault rifles are for killing people.  They are a weapon of warfare.
> 
> Only congress can declare war.



Hell, you couldn't define what an assault rifle is.


----------



## PaulS1950

Do you have a constitutionally protected right to own a truck - or any vehicle?
We have a constitutionally protected right to own guns that would be considered for common use in the military infantry. Those guns are protected because all able-bodied men are members of the reserve militia. Those members are required to report with their own arms that are in common use by the military when called. The AR-15 is the civilian weapon that most closely matches what the military uses. The general population is not currently allowed to own fully automatic weapons without paying an additional "tax" on the guns. Those that do pay that "tax" are allowed weapons that far exceed what the infantry carries in both caliber and firing rate.


----------



## Snookie

The Rabbi said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assault rifles are for killing people. They are a weapon of warfare.
> 
> Only congress can declare war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you couldn't define what an assault rifle is.
Click to expand...

 

Oh yeah?


----------



## Politico

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then buy a shotgun or pistol and keep your nose out of other people's business. Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this goes along the lines of "no one needs X for Y." Screw that logic. We dont apply it anywhere else, why here? Because people get killed with guns? People get killed with cars, rat poison, ladders, and a bunch of other shit too. It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make. And screw that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called "Public Safety" for the good of the "Public Interest".
> 
> I would rather call 911,
> Rather than using a gun.
Click to expand...


Then call 911 and keep your nose out of other people's business. Problem solved.


----------



## PaulS1950

Snookie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assault rifles are for killing people. They are a weapon of warfare.
> 
> Only congress can declare war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you couldn't define what an assault rifle is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
Click to expand...


That is not even a real gun! It is out of a comic book movie!
Really? is that the best you got? A comic book 357 assault rifle from Grimjack productions?
Please!


----------



## Artiewhitefox

People want to ban this, and that does not make better people.  Evil people use a weapon on anyone calling it Good. They don't value an unseen thing called soul.    Jesus kept himself on the strait and narrow refraining from using a weapon on anyone.  That kept him from using the sword when betrayed. A weapon would not be used no matter how plenteous weapons were with Jesus in you.


----------



## PaulS1950

Artiewhitefox said:


> People want to ban this, and that does not make better people.  Evil people use a weapon on anyone calling it Good. They don't value an unseen thing called soul.    Jesus kept himself on the strait and narrow refraining from using a weapon on anyone.  That kept him from using the sword when betrayed. A weapon would not be used no matter how plenteous weapons were with Jesus in you.



Except when He beat the money changers at the temple... He kinda lost it then.

The soul is never governed by anyone but your own faith. Only civil actions require outside influence to govern.


----------



## Sactowndog

The Rabbi said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is NOT a democracy.
> 
> Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US IS a democracy - it is just not a DIRECT democracy. It's a representative democracy.
> 
> It's also worth remembering that referendums are signs of a direct democracy - and plenty of states hold referendums, don't they?
> 
> Some 58% of American support tighter gun control laws - while 6% say they should be looser.
> 
> If you believe in the will of the people, then you are going to back the 58%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was there a vote taken?  Link?
> Let me ask the question and I will give you the poll result you want.
> 
> Do you favor laws that will only disarm honest American citizens and leave criminals in control of deadly weapons?
> 
> Anyway, even people backing an AWB concede it doesnt do anything to control violence.  So it is an empty political gesture, with real infringements on liberty.
Click to expand...


The whole point of the bill of rights is to protect the population from the majority!   Saying we live in a democracy and therefore the will of the majority should prevail fundamentally misses the whole point of the bill of rights.


----------



## PaulS1950

Yes, and it misses the point that we live in a constitutional Republic too. 
No one has the right to disarm the population, especially the government.


----------



## Sactowndog

The Rabbi said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is NOT a democracy.
> 
> Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US IS a democracy - it is just not a DIRECT democracy. It's a representative democracy.
> 
> It's also worth remembering that referendums are signs of a direct democracy - and plenty of states hold referendums, don't they?
> 
> Some 58% of American support tighter gun control laws - while 6% say they should be looser.
> 
> If you believe in the will of the people, then you are going to back the 58%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was there a vote taken?  Link?
> Let me ask the question and I will give you the poll result you want.
> 
> Do you favor laws that will only disarm honest American citizens and leave criminals in control of deadly weapons?
> 
> Anyway, even people backing an AWB concede it doesnt do anything to control violence.  So it is an empty political gesture, with real infringements on liberty.
Click to expand...




PaulS1950 said:


> Yes, and it misses the point that we live in a constitutional Republic too.
> No one has the right to disarm the population, especially the government.



The problem is given the war on "terror" the US government has developed an expertise in fighting an asymmetric war.    The supporters of assault weapons state rightly that the people should not be massively out gunned by the government.  Unfortunately we already are.  

If the NRA were really about protecting the ability of the people to fight the federal government they would trade some reasonable limitations on assault type guns like biometrics for dispersing to the states technology like drone technology which has been so effective against al Quida and could easily be turned on the US populace.


----------



## PaulS1950

Anyone who believes the US is a democracy needs to educate themselves on the difference between the two. In a democracy the majority decides what is right for everyone but in a Republic the people have rights that are beyond reproach - even if 99.9% of the voters diagree. 
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep decidine what is for dinner - in a Republic the sheep has the same rights as the wolves and the ability to defend itself agains the wolves. The wolves therefore eat something besides rack of lamb.


----------



## yota5

Black hawk, has presented a good comparison with prohibition to clearly illustrate the effects of bad, poorly thought out legislation.  Organized crime loved Prohibition.  It gave them the opportunity to makes lots of money.  Thousands of people died.  Organized crime used their ill gotten gains to finance operations in prostitution, numbers, murder for hire, illicit drugs, and to buy corrupt politicians.  All of us know that this list will go on, and on.  Now the brain trust in D.C. wants to give the bad guys an even greater opportunity.  The consequences of the erosion of our 2nd amendment rights will have catastrophic effect on our society.  I don't think that any of us want that.  I for one am tired of defending my right to own firearms every time that a nut job takes to the streets.  I think that all of us would support a new law that mandated life in prison for any one committing a crime with any weapon.  That should get everyone's attention, and put the bad guys away so that they can't continue to harm our society.


----------



## varelse

​


----------



## Circe

yota5 said:


> I for one am tired of defending my right to own firearms every time that a nut job takes to the streets.



You don't have to feel defensive about owning ANY guns whenever there is another rampage mass murder.  I don't think most of the public worries about people having a gun or two as a tool --- it's pretty much indispensable on a farm, for instance.

It's these guns that are manufactured to be as close as possible to the military mass killing machines intended to kill lots of people! Which are then used that way by the gun nuts themselves or their sons or their neighbor's sons who steal them. These are evil guns intended for bad, harmful purposes. The people who own them are NOT the good guys. 

There is a reason why so many people call assault rifle owners "gun nuts." I mean, you gotta worry about somebody who owns guns and high-capacity magazines designed to kill lots and lots of people! I think, probably he wants to run out and kill me and mine like that guy in Alabama with the kid trapped in his bunker was doing, shooting at his neighbors and their little children, or run shooting into a McDonalds. It's a very scary thing to know there are so many men with those things running around free. Why are they doing that, you know? Why did they spend all that money to buy a gun meant to kill lots and lots of people? It can't possibly be innocent.


----------



## Underhill

PaulS1950 said:


> Anyone who believes the US is a democracy needs to educate themselves on the difference between the two. In a democracy the majority decides what is right for everyone but in a Republic the people have rights that are beyond reproach - even if 99.9% of the voters diagree.
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep decidine what is for dinner - in a Republic the sheep has the same rights as the wolves and the ability to defend itself agains the wolves. The wolves therefore eat something besides rack of lamb.



Actually what you are describing as a republic has nothing to do with your rights.

Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there.   And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.

A republic is ruled by representatives of the people.   A pure democracy would mean every decision is made by a vote of all citizens.    That is the difference in the purest sense.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PaulS1950 said:


> Yes, and it misses the point that we live in a constitutional Republic too.
> No one has the right to disarm the population, especially the government.



No one is advocating disarming the population, this type of hyperbolic nonsense only undermines useful debate.


----------



## Underhill

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not regulate cars the same way.  that is obvious.  If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced.  If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced.  But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers.  Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents.  But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it.  Or whatever.
> They are not alike at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that example is perfect.
> 
> As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.
> 
> The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.
> 
> Now there are differences obviously.   But the goal is the same.  The cause is the same.    No example is perfect.
> 
> It just doesn't matter.    Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything on the issue.   Both sides have legitimate complaints and defenses.   And both sides think the other is off their rocker.    It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> I am on the fence.
> 
> I don't think anyone should take away guns.  Even if it has worked in other places (and the evidence is murky either way) I doubt it would here.    There are too many of them.
> 
> On the other hand I think there are ways to make them safer.   Mandatory gun locks.  Mandatory training.   Taking the handcuffs off those who are supposed to enforce current laws.    These things could be done without infringing on anyone's rights.   And while I'm sure many would still be against them, I couldn't care less.
> 
> These are things all gun owners should be doing anyway.
> 
> Things like limiting clip sizes to 10 are fine by me, but would have a negligible impact so I'm not going to get too worked up about them either way.
> 
> I would love to see a push by the people for less fear based reporting, less sensationalist news coverage.   But it seems unlikely.   The most watched news channel by a wide margin is among the most guilty.   It seems to attract viewers so of course they all do it.
> 
> But everyone needs to calm the fuck down.    The world probably isn't going to end tomorrow and chances are, if it does, your fucked anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should cops also have locks on their service weapons?
> Should cops be limited to magazine capacity
Click to expand...


I couldn't care less.   Most cops never fire their guns.   They also aren't held to the same rules as the rest of us.    Swat routinely uses guns that are illegal to the average guy.    

We aren't talking about cops.


----------



## PaulS1950

The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not regulate cars the same way.  that is obvious.  If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced.  If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced.  But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers.  Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents.  But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it.  Or whatever.
> They are not alike at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that example is perfect.
> 
> As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.
> 
> The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.
> 
> Now there are differences obviously.   But the goal is the same.  The cause is the same.    No example is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with the example.   

I'm not going to argue something so simplistic.   Obviously the government regulates vehicles that are a danger to the public welfare.   

As I said, this is a waste of time.   People on both sides have a religious obsession with this issue.


----------



## Underhill

PaulS1950 said:


> The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
> There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
> Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.



I'm not worried about legal gun owners.

I am worried about the 300k gun thefts.   I think gun owners should be responsible and keep guns locked up at all times.    It's not a difficult concept.


----------



## PaulS1950

Underhill said:


> Actually what you are describing as a republic has nothing to do with your rights.
> 
> Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there.   And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.
> 
> A republic is ruled by representatives of the people.   A pure democracy would mean every decision is made by a vote of all citizens.    That is the difference in the purest sense.




If you were educated on the matter before us you would know that the bill of rights was added to let the government know that it was their job to defend the rights mentioned and those that were not.

The rights were and still are birthrites. There is nothing in the constitution that says the rights were granted by it or by any law - what the amendments say is that the rights are inherent to all living humans and they are outside the jurisdiction of the government and the people.
The biggest difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that the Republic recognizes individual rights that are beyond the powers of government and even the people themselves. That is why the nineth amendment was added - they couldn't list all our rights so they covered them in the nineth.

"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different. *The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority.* In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue."

I bolded the most important part for you so you wouldn't have too hard a time finding it.


----------



## Underhill

PaulS1950 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what you are describing as a republic has nothing to do with your rights.
> 
> Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there.   And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.
> 
> A republic is ruled by representatives of the people.   A pure democracy would mean every decision is made by a vote of all citizens.    That is the difference in the purest sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were educated on the matter before us you would know that the bill of rights was added to let the government know that it was their job to defend the rights mentioned and those that were not.
> 
> The rights were and still are birthrites. There is nothing in the constitution that says the rights were granted by it or by any law - what the amendments say is that the rights are inherent to all living humans and they are outside the jurisdiction of the government and the people.
> The biggest difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that the Republic recognizes individual rights that are beyond the powers of government and even the people themselves. That is why the nineth amendment was added - they couldn't list all our rights so they covered them in the nineth.
> 
> "By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different. *The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority.* In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue."
> 
> I bolded the most important part for you so you wouldn't have too hard a time finding it.
Click to expand...


Yes, rights are protected but not to any degree.   The bill of rights can be amended, added to, or have parts removed.    It's not as simple as a majority vote, but it can be done and has been in the past. 

And what I described is no less correct.    The representatives of the people are the buffer.   They are elected, and in turn trusted, to do what is right regardless of the will of the people.   

But the reality is they are politicians and anyone who thinks they will act in any way that will put their political career on the line is delusional.


----------



## PaulS1950

The bill of rights has NEVER let me say that again  *N E V E R* been amended. There have been other amendments that have been but none of the first ten (which are the bill of rights) have ever been amended.


----------



## PaulS1950

Underhill said:


> Yes, rights are protected but not to any degree.   The bill of rights can be amended, added to, or have parts removed.    It's not as simple as a majority vote, but it can be done and has been in the past.
> 
> And what I described is no less correct.    The representatives of the people are the buffer.   They are elected, and in turn trusted, to do what is right regardless of the will of the people.
> 
> But the reality is they are politicians and anyone who thinks they will act in any way that will put their political career on the line is delusional.



In your seven  sentences you have lied four times. 

The rights are protected by the history that we have of the intention of the founding fathers. Like it or not the reasons they expressed publicly weigh heavily in the decisions of the supreme court. It is the understanding of what they built that makes it so important to keep that essence alive throughout our history.

The first ten amendments, the bill of rights, have never and can never be amended or detracted. Not even with a unanimous vote of all the people, all the states, and the whole of congress. 

The representatives are elected to do the will of the people - nothing else. This government is one "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" not by the elected officials for the elected officials  - throughout the constitution it is THE PEOPLE who are served by government not the government served by the people. You are either completely uneducated or simple.

There have been many politicians who have gone against the wishes of the people to find themselves out of a job, and some who thought they were above the laws set forth in the constitution. NIxon and Obama are two. Obama found out that he could not just appoint people to jobs without the congress and the result was that a lot of rules that were passed by the NTSB have been thrown out because the appointments were unlawful.

Ignorance can be cured with education but stupidity has only one cure and it usually takes too long to take effect.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Underhill said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that example is perfect.
> 
> As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.
> 
> The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.
> 
> Now there are differences obviously.   But the goal is the same.  The cause is the same.    No example is perfect.
> 
> It just doesn't matter.    Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything on the issue.   Both sides have legitimate complaints and defenses.   And both sides think the other is off their rocker.    It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> I am on the fence.
> 
> I don't think anyone should take away guns.  Even if it has worked in other places (and the evidence is murky either way) I doubt it would here.    There are too many of them.
> 
> On the other hand I think there are ways to make them safer.   Mandatory gun locks.  Mandatory training.   Taking the handcuffs off those who are supposed to enforce current laws.    These things could be done without infringing on anyone's rights.   And while I'm sure many would still be against them, I couldn't care less.
> 
> These are things all gun owners should be doing anyway.
> 
> Things like limiting clip sizes to 10 are fine by me, but would have a negligible impact so I'm not going to get too worked up about them either way.
> 
> I would love to see a push by the people for less fear based reporting, less sensationalist news coverage.   But it seems unlikely.   The most watched news channel by a wide margin is among the most guilty.   It seems to attract viewers so of course they all do it.
> 
> But everyone needs to calm the fuck down.    The world probably isn't going to end tomorrow and chances are, if it does, your fucked anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should cops also have locks on their service weapons?
> Should cops be limited to magazine capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less.   Most cops never fire their guns.   They also aren't held to the same rules as the rest of us.    Swat routinely uses guns that are illegal to the average guy.
> 
> We aren't talking about cops.
Click to expand...


OH so cops lives are somehow different than a civilians lives? Of course you don't care because it makes your position look really stupid and weak.


----------



## Sactowndog

Underhill said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the US is a democracy needs to educate themselves on the difference between the two. In a democracy the majority decides what is right for everyone but in a Republic the people have rights that are beyond reproach - even if 99.9% of the voters diagree.
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep decidine what is for dinner - in a Republic the sheep has the same rights as the wolves and the ability to defend itself agains the wolves. The wolves therefore eat something besides rack of lamb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what you are describing as a republic has nothing to do with your rights.
> 
> Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there.   And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.
> 
> A republic is ruled by representatives of the people.   A pure democracy would mean every decision is made by a vote of all citizens.    That is the difference in the purest sense.
Click to expand...


I am not a right wing nut.  In fact, I hate the current instantiation of the Republican Party...  That fact aside, you really need to spend some time reading the Federalist papers or take a US government class in your community college because you couldn't be more ignorant in what your are saying.

The whole point is that the rights framed in the constitution are inalienable rights given to us by God and rights that no government can take away.  The point of the second amendment is that without arms all those rights are at risk by tyrannical governments; The worst of which is the tyranny of the majority.

Your arguments are so off base and show such little understanding of the basis on which this country was founded it is embarrassing.  I voted for Barak Obama so you can't claim I am right wing.


----------



## Sactowndog

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it misses the point that we live in a constitutional Republic too.
> No one has the right to disarm the population, especially the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is advocating disarming the population, this type of hyperbolic nonsense only undermines useful debate.
Click to expand...


The point is valid and invalid at the same time.  The "intent" of the second amendment is that the population should be sufficiently armed to overthrow a tyrannical government.

On one hand the right is correct that without automatic weapons the populace is at a severe disadvantage relative to the government.  

The worst part about the "war on terror" is for the past 12 years the federal government has been developing, testing and perfecting exactly the types of strategies they would use against a popular uprising.  Automatic weapons against drones are pointless.  

Sadly the NRA is more about protecting gun manufacturers then about protecting our rights.  What should be done is all guns should have biometric devices that allow them to be shot by a specific set of owners.  Especially military style assault rifles.  That would prevent the crazies from killing mom and using her guns.  In exchange drone technology should be dispersed to national guard units so the technology isn't concentrated in the hands of the federal government.


----------



## Sactowndog

PaulS1950 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, rights are protected but not to any degree.   The bill of rights can be amended, added to, or have parts removed.    It's not as simple as a majority vote, but it can be done and has been in the past.
> 
> And what I described is no less correct.    The representatives of the people are the buffer.   They are elected, and in turn trusted, to do what is right regardless of the will of the people.
> 
> But the reality is they are politicians and anyone who thinks they will act in any way that will put their political career on the line is delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your seven  sentences you have lied four times.
> 
> The rights are protected by the history that we have of the intention of the founding fathers. Like it or not the reasons they expressed publicly weigh heavily in the decisions of the supreme court. It is the understanding of what they built that makes it so important to keep that essence alive throughout our history.
> 
> The first ten amendments, the bill of rights, have never and can never be amended or detracted. Not even with a unanimous vote of all the people, all the states, and the whole of congress.
> 
> The representatives are elected to do the will of the people - nothing else. This government is one "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" not by the elected officials for the elected officials  - throughout the constitution it is THE PEOPLE who are served by government not the government served by the people. You are either completely uneducated or simple.
> 
> There have been many politicians who have gone against the wishes of the people to find themselves out of a job, and some who thought they were above the laws set forth in the constitution. NIxon and Obama are two. Obama found out that he could not just appoint people to jobs without the congress and the result was that a lot of rules that were passed by the NTSB have been thrown out because the appointments were unlawful.
> 
> Ignorance can be cured with education but stupidity has only one cure and it usually takes too long to take effect.
Click to expand...


You lose all credibility when you don't include GW Bush in that list.


----------



## Underhill

PaulS1950 said:


> The bill of rights has NEVER let me say that again  *N E V E R* been amended. There have been other amendments that have been but none of the first ten (which are the bill of rights) have ever been amended.



Okay valid point, but they are an amendment to the constitution.   And amendments have been changed.


----------



## Underhill

PaulS1950 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, rights are protected but not to any degree.   The bill of rights can be amended, added to, or have parts removed.    It's not as simple as a majority vote, but it can be done and has been in the past.
> 
> And what I described is no less correct.    The representatives of the people are the buffer.   They are elected, and in turn trusted, to do what is right regardless of the will of the people.
> 
> But the reality is they are politicians and anyone who thinks they will act in any way that will put their political career on the line is delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your seven  sentences you have lied four times.
Click to expand...


Lied?  Really?



> The rights are protected by the history that we have of the intention of the founding fathers. Like it or not the reasons they expressed publicly weigh heavily in the decisions of the supreme court. It is the understanding of what they built that makes it so important to keep that essence alive throughout our history.



History protects us?   Sorry but thats nonsense.   If congress wanted to, clearly they could make changes.



> The first ten amendments, the bill of rights, have never and can never be amended or detracted. Not even with a unanimous vote of all the people, all the states, and the whole of congress.



Feel free to point out the bit that says it cannot be amended.    It would be incredibly difficult but it is possible.   



> The representatives are elected to do the will of the people - nothing else. This government is one "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" not by the elected officials for the elected officials  - throughout the constitution it is THE PEOPLE who are served by government not the government served by the people. You are either completely uneducated or simple.



Yeah sure,  but the will of the people is all to often stupid.  I  point to our 30 years of deficits as evidence of this.    But you are right in part.   That is the way it is.   Politicians making stupid decisions based upon the will of an uneducated populace that is bad for the long term good of the nation and sometimes even their own constituency. 

But the founding fathers, if you actually read their opinions, hoped that the representatives would mitigate the all too often ignorant and destructive will of the people.    



> There have been many politicians who have gone against the wishes of the people to find themselves out of a job, and some who thought they were above the laws set forth in the constitution. NIxon and Obama are two. Obama found out that he could not just appoint people to jobs without the congress and the result was that a lot of rules that were passed by the NTSB have been thrown out because the appointments were unlawful.



Sure, of course Bush did the same thing.   Every president bitches during the elections about the previous guys over-reaching, and virtually every one of them does the same exact thing once they are confronted with opposition. 



> Ignorance can be cured with education but stupidity has only one cure and it usually takes too long to take effect.



If you are incapable of having a conversation without insults then you need to do some growing up.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Circe said:


> Why did they spend all that money to buy a gun meant to kill lots and lots of people? It can't possibly be innocent.


----------



## Snookie

PaulS1950 said:


> The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
> There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
> Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.


 
Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Snookie said:


> Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.



Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PaulS1950 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you couldn't define what an assault rifle is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not even a real gun! It is out of a comic book movie!
> Really? is that the best you got? A comic book 357 assault rifle from Grimjack productions?
> Please!
Click to expand...

Things like this only make it less likely that there will ever be another 'assault weapon' ban.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one am tired of defending my right to own firearms every time that a nut job takes to the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to feel defensive about owning ANY guns whenever there is another rampage mass murder.  I don't think most of the public worries about people having a gun or two as a tool --- it's pretty much indispensable on a farm, for instance.
> 
> It's these guns that are manufactured to be as close as possible to the military mass killing machines intended to kill lots of people! Which are then used that way by the gun nuts themselves or their sons or their neighbor's sons who steal them. These are evil guns intended for bad, harmful purposes. The people who own them are NOT the good guys.
Click to expand...

Aother spectacular display of mindlessness, ignorance and bigotry!
Well done!


----------



## Snookie

M14 Shooter said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not even a real gun! It is out of a comic book movie!
> Really? is that the best you got? A comic book 357 assault rifle from Grimjack productions?
> Please!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things like this only make it less likely that there will ever be another 'assault weapon' ban.
Click to expand...

 
LOL, I played you dudes on that one.  LOL.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that example is perfect.
> 
> As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements.   You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.
> 
> The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips.   You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.
> 
> Now there are differences obviously.   But the goal is the same.  The cause is the same.    No example is perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the example.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the example.

Again, you're arguing that because we can regulate right A because of Y, we can also regulate right B because of Z.

The fact that we can regulate cars used on public property in no way means we can regulate guns that are not. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)


----------



## Underhill

M14 Shooter said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has everything to do with the example.
> 
> Again, you're arguing that because we can regulate right A because of Y, we can also regulate right B because of Z.
> 
> The fact that we can regulate cars used on public property in no way means we can regulate guns that are not.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Click to expand...


They are both a threat to public welfare when used incorrectly.

And for those of you that brought up the 2nd again, I wouldn't argue except to say the right to bear arms does not mean we cannot regulate them and put limits on their use.   We already do.       

We aren't talking about bans, but regulations.  Two entirely different things in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Snookie

OODA_Loop said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.
Click to expand...

 

Why not?  You're slipping.  lol.


----------



## Underhill

Snookie said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You're slipping.  lol.
Click to expand...


So it's okay if the 2nd protects some arms and not others?


----------



## faptist

Here is how effective another assault weapons ban will be:
I have made 12 firearms from scratch & made ammo from scratch,all legal.It isn't all that hard really & doesn't require a rocket scientist.Legal or not,it's simple to make.When I was 15 (2004),I could get weed,cocaine,heroine & firearms VERY easily.

The firearms were mostly ak47 types imported from china,glock knockoffs,& revolvers all very cheap.And this was in a lil bitty town with 0-4 murders a year & very low violent crime.Feinstein's bill & NY's bill is useless.If anyone thinks these moronic knee jerk emotionally driven bills will save lives,they are out of touch with reality.
At the range I can shoot 24 quick moving targets dead center neck,head,&/or chest in 2-3mins with a 6 shot .45 revolver.Although its unlikely to be chosen,a revolver can successfully be used in a mass shooting.


----------



## beagle9

Snookie said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
> There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
> Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.
Click to expand...

Very dumb response to such a well written post..... This is the lib mindset though, where as it's like you people have been sheltered all your life, and then if by some chance you get into a leadership position due to having possibly more book sense then you have common sense as to be coupled with it, then you easily make fools of yourself as to what most in the country who are Americans think about you sadly enough. Especially when you open your mouths in this way, but it's ok though, because it is all due to your upbringing I guess.....I mean is there any other explanation out there really to explain it ? (smile)


----------



## Snookie

Underhill said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? You're slipping. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's okay if the 2nd protects some arms and not others?
Click to expand...

 
Every red blooded american should have the right to have a nuclear bomb.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the example.
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the example.
> 
> Again, you're arguing that because we can regulate right A because of Y, we can also regulate right B because of Z.
> 
> The fact that we can regulate cars used on public property in no way means we can regulate guns that are not.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are both a threat to public welfare when used incorrectly.
> 
> And for those of you that brought up the 2nd again, I wouldn't argue except to say the right to bear arms does not mean we cannot regulate them and put limits on their use.   We already do.
> 
> We aren't talking about bans, but regulations.  Two entirely different things in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

Nothing you say he negates the soundness of my response - you're arguing apples and potatoes.


----------



## M14 Shooter

beagle9 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
> There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
> Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very dumb response to such a well written post.
Click to expand...

Give him a break - he's doing the best he can with what he has to work with.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Underhill said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You're slipping.  lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's okay if the 2nd protects some arms and not others?
Click to expand...

The jurisprudence on this issue is very clear.
That the 2nd does not protect every weapon imaginable does not in any way support an argument that certain firearms are not protected.


----------



## beagle9

Underhill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the example.
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the example.
> 
> Again, you're arguing that because we can regulate right A because of Y, we can also regulate right B because of Z.
> 
> The fact that we can regulate cars used on public property in no way means we can regulate guns that are not.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are both a threat to public welfare when used incorrectly.
> 
> And for those of you that brought up the 2nd again, I wouldn't argue except to say the right to bear arms does not mean we cannot regulate them and put limits on their use.   We already do.
> 
> We aren't talking about bans, but regulations.  Two entirely different things in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

The regulations that have been placed on them in the past, has shown not to work, because as it is being attempted once again we are trying to regulate without identifying the real culprits in the situation, so going after an object is safer when it comes to idiotic politicians, because they don't want to make any voter base they think they have in their tool box mad now do they? Problem with this way of thinking, is that all voters are not necessarily good people, but if they can lift that hand and vote, then they are all the best of people in a politicians view, so the beat goes on as our freedoms parish under this way of doing business in America these days, especially on the issues that are being dealt with now in these ways.


----------



## Snookie

beagle9 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
> There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
> Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very dumb response to such a well written post..... This is the lib mindset though, where as it's like you people have been sheltered all your life, and then if by some chance you get into a leadership position due to having possibly more book sense then you have common sense as to be coupled with it, then you easily make fools of yourself as to what most in the country who are Americans think about you sadly enough. Especially when you open your mouths in this way, but it's ok though, because it is all due to your upbringing I guess.....I mean is there any other explanation out there really to explain it ? (smile)
Click to expand...

 
Your opinion is not valid IMHO.


----------



## beagle9

M14 Shooter said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.
> 
> 
> 
> Very dumb response to such a well written post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give him a break - he's doing the best he can with what he has to work with.
Click to expand...




Is this his brain trying to think about this just a tad bit better maybe....lol

Now this is nuclear..


----------



## beagle9

Snookie said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.
> 
> 
> 
> Very dumb response to such a well written post..... This is the lib mindset though, where as it's like you people have been sheltered all your life, and then if by some chance you get into a leadership position due to having possibly more book sense then you have common sense as to be coupled with it, then you easily make fools of yourself as to what most in the country who are Americans think about you sadly enough. Especially when you open your mouths in this way, but it's ok though, because it is all due to your upbringing I guess.....I mean is there any other explanation out there really to explain it ? (smile)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is not valid IMHO.
Click to expand...

A lot of thought went into that one didn't it ?


----------



## Sactowndog

Underhill said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You're slipping.  lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's okay if the 2nd protects some arms and not others?
Click to expand...


Actually it's not.  As pointed out the 2nd Amendment was intended to insure the people weren't out gunned by the Federal government.  The best argument you have is the people are currently so outgunned that banning assault weapons won't amount to a hill of beans.

The current concentration of power and technology in our federal government is enourmous.  The ability of the President to do damn well anything he pleases has been unchallenged by the ends justifies the means left and the in the all mighty America crowd on the Right.  Ron Paul was a lone voice in the wilderness on this topic and if the republicans had nominated him I would have voted for him.


----------



## varelse

Underhill said:


> Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there.   And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.



Read the declaration of independence again. The entire basis of a free republic is grounded upon the legal and ethical fiction of inalienable rights inherent to all persons. The moment you reject that fiction as the foundation of our society and law, you embrace tyranny, oppression, and the exploitation of the weak.


----------



## varelse

Ban Guns: Chicago shall lead the way!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Underhill said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You're slipping.  lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's okay if the 2nd protects some arms and not others?
Click to expand...


Yes the 2A protects the arms in common use.

Semi-auto rifles that accept a detachable magazine are very common.


----------



## Snookie

beagle9 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very dumb response to such a well written post..... This is the lib mindset though, where as it's like you people have been sheltered all your life, and then if by some chance you get into a leadership position due to having possibly more book sense then you have common sense as to be coupled with it, then you easily make fools of yourself as to what most in the country who are Americans think about you sadly enough. Especially when you open your mouths in this way, but it's ok though, because it is all due to your upbringing I guess.....I mean is there any other explanation out there really to explain it ? (smile)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is not valid IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of thought went into that one didn't it ?
Click to expand...

 
No, it comes to me easily.
   I'm a natural born debator.


----------



## beagle9

Snookie said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is not valid IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of thought went into that one didn't it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it comes to me easily.
> I'm a natural born debator.
Click to expand...

Went right over your head didn't it ?


----------



## Snookie

beagle9 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of thought went into that one didn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it comes to me easily.
> I'm a natural born debator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Went right over your head didn't it ?
Click to expand...

 
No, I don't miss any thing when I pwn someone.


----------



## Sactowndog

Snookie said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it comes to me easily.
> I'm a natural born debator.
> 
> 
> 
> Went right over your head didn't it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't miss any thing when I pwn someone.
Click to expand...


Well snookie you have certainly proven one thing: there are idiots on both sides.  The Federalist papers are far from passé.


----------



## M14 Shooter

OODA_Loop said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You're slipping.  lol.
> 
> 
> 
> So it's okay if the 2nd protects some arms and not others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the 2A protects the arms in common use.
> Semi-auto rifles that accept a detachable magazine are very common.
Click to expand...

But...  but... they're SCARY!


----------



## sealybobo

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?



The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.

“President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
Click to expand...


Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
Click to expand...


So what?  

*Virginia Beach shooter killed 12 using silencer and high-capacity magazine. Now, lawmakers might look at both.*
A handgun with a silencer and high-capacity magazine has no "purpose other than increasing the gun’s lethality" for a mass attack, a gun-reform advocate said.

20 people were killed and another 26 injured when an anti-immigrant gunman armed with an assault rifle 

was armed with an AK-47-style assault rifle and extra magazines. 


and Ohio

The shooting broke out shortly after 1 a.m. Sunday as a man armed with an assault rifle approached the Ned Peppers bar in the downtown Oregon District, where thousands of people fill bars and nightclubs each weekend.


----------



## KissMy

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
Click to expand...

Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
Click to expand...


My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets.  This gun should remain legal.  It's clearly for hunting.

I know you gun nuts want to be able to protect yourselves from the government but guess what?  Who's going to protect us from you?  Even though you personally will never do a mass shooting, too many of your kind will and this needs to stop.

The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun.  It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal.  I say 5 is appropriate.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> *Virginia Beach shooter killed 12 using silencer and high-capacity magazine. Now, lawmakers might look at both.*
> A handgun with a silencer and high-capacity magazine has no "purpose other than increasing the gun’s lethality" for a mass attack, a gun-reform advocate said.
> 
> 20 people were killed and another 26 injured when an anti-immigrant gunman armed with an assault rifle
> 
> was armed with an AK-47-style assault rifle and extra magazines.
> 
> 
> and Ohio
> 
> The shooting broke out shortly after 1 a.m. Sunday as a man armed with an assault rifle approached the Ned Peppers bar in the downtown Oregon District, where thousands of people fill bars and nightclubs each weekend.
Click to expand...


Words mean things


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets.  This gun should remain legal.  It's clearly for hunting.
> 
> I know you gun nuts want to be able to protect yourselves from the government but guess what?  Who's going to protect us from you?  Even though you personally will never do a mass shooting, too many of your kind will and this needs to stop.
> 
> The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun.  It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal.  I say 5 is appropriate.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment is about the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively from enemies.

Hunting is a side benefit.

You don't get to say it

If 5 is good enough, why don't we limit cops to that as well?


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!
Click to expand...


Do you have a point?


----------



## KissMy

martybegan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, you commie dick sucking fucktard?
Click to expand...

Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, you commie dick sucking fucktard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Hand grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?
Click to expand...


Argumentum ad absurdum.

Try harder.

The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control nuts is we know what you want as an end game.

In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.

Is that infringement or not?


----------



## KissMy

martybegan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, you commie dick sucking fucktard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Hand grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control freaks is we know what you want as an end game.
> 
> In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.
> 
> Is that infringement or not?
Click to expand...


There is no reason for quick change magazine in a self defense gun. A CCW permit should not cost more or be more difficult to obtain than a drivers license. A potential terrorist should not be allowed to drive, fly, own or access a car, truck, plane, gun, explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, you commie dick sucking fucktard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Hand grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control freaks is we know what you want as an end game.
> 
> In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.
> 
> Is that infringement or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason for quick change magazine in a self defense gun. A CCW permit should not cost more or be more difficult to obtain than a drivers license. A potential terrorist should not be allowed to drive, fly, own or access a car, truck, plane, gun, explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.
Click to expand...


Your opinion. When cops give up their semi's, then you can talk. 

How does one decide a person is a potential terrorist?


----------



## KissMy

martybegan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, you commie dick sucking fucktard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Hand grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control freaks is we know what you want as an end game.
> 
> In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.
> 
> Is that infringement or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason for quick change magazine in a self defense gun. A CCW permit should not cost more or be more difficult to obtain than a drivers license. A potential terrorist should not be allowed to drive, fly, own or access a car, truck, plane, gun, explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion. When cops give up their semi's, then you can talk.
> 
> How does one decide a person is a potential terrorist?
Click to expand...

I don't care if it's a bolt action, dual action, semi or full auto or holds 15 rounds!. We just don't need quick change magazines. Cops don't need them either!!! Let them spray their 15 rounds on full auto, because they will miss more people!


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, you commie dick sucking fucktard?
> 
> 
> 
> Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Hand grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control freaks is we know what you want as an end game.
> 
> In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.
> 
> Is that infringement or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason for quick change magazine in a self defense gun. A CCW permit should not cost more or be more difficult to obtain than a drivers license. A potential terrorist should not be allowed to drive, fly, own or access a car, truck, plane, gun, explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion. When cops give up their semi's, then you can talk.
> 
> How does one decide a person is a potential terrorist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if it's a bolt action, dual action, semi or full auto or holds 15 rounds!. We just don't need quick change magazines. Cops don't need them either!!! Let them spray their 15 rounds on full auto, because they will miss more people!
Click to expand...


You don't need them until you do need them.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

If you are a responsible gun owner and have AR15's or AK47's....then you should probably get a safe and keep those in a safe to prevent theft.
Those are what I call "Tyranny Suppression" weapons you don't need often.
You can always keep a 15 round 9mm or other semi auto pistol or shotgun out and available for home protection.

Is this a bad idea and why?

There are things that gun owners could do to potentially help without giving up their rights.

But I insist that the biggest "gun problem" we have in this nation is leftist policies which destroy the family and create angry, hedonistic deranged monsters and encourage criminal activity.  Until that is properly addressed, no amount of feel good gun laws will help.

Trump actually said that today.   Surprised me.   Probably the best Prez we've had in a long time all things considered.


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> If you are a responsible gun owner and have AR15's or AK47's....then you should probably get a safe and keep those in a safe to prevent theft.
> Those are what I call "Tyranny Suppression" weapons you don't need often.
> You can always keep a 15 round 9mm or other semi auto pistol or shotgun out and available for home protection.
> 
> Is this a bad idea and why?
> 
> There are things that gun owners could do to potentially help without giving up their rights.



The problem is if you codify storage requirements like that, gun control advocates will make the laws so convoluted, expensive, and time consuming that it would turn into a de-facto ban on said weapons requiring the storage conditions.


----------



## Dick Foster

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?



Well dont you know how well prohibition works? Just look it how it prevented alcohol abuse then went on to conquer drug abuse. 
Prohibition is nothing more than a panacea for fools and a tool for politicians. It never has been anything else and it never will be anything else. It works as well as bandaids do to prevent cuts and skinned knees.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> The problem is if you codify storage requirements like that, gun control advocates will make the laws so convoluted, expensive, and time consuming that it would turn into a de-facto ban on said weapons requiring the storage conditions.



I didn't say to make it any kind of *requirement*.   Where did you get that?

Just something responsible owners of Tyranny Suppression weapons could do on their own to potentially help the situation.

If you have AR15's or AK47's etc.....do you really think leaving them unsecured at home while you are away is a good idea?


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is if you codify storage requirements like that, gun control advocates will make the laws so convoluted, expensive, and time consuming that it would turn into a de-facto ban on said weapons requiring the storage conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say to make it any kind of *requirement*.   Where did you get that?
> 
> Just something responsible owners of Tyranny Suppression weapons could do on their own to potentially help the situation.
Click to expand...


Voluntarily doing things won't placate the gun control people. They will demand codification, and that will lead to end runs using said codificiation to make owning a semi auto long rifle as difficult as possible.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> Voluntarily doing things won't placate the gun control people. They will demand codification, and that will lead to end runs using said codificiation to make owning a semi auto long rifle as difficult as possible.



Marty, with all due respect....I think you're missing the point.

I agree they have a end goal of disarming America.   But that doesn't mean we can't do common sense things on our own to make sure we voluntarily do what we can to prevent our guns from getting into the wrong hands.


----------



## KissMy

martybegan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Hand grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control freaks is we know what you want as an end game.
> 
> In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.
> 
> Is that infringement or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason for quick change magazine in a self defense gun. A CCW permit should not cost more or be more difficult to obtain than a drivers license. A potential terrorist should not be allowed to drive, fly, own or access a car, truck, plane, gun, explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion. When cops give up their semi's, then you can talk.
> 
> How does one decide a person is a potential terrorist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if it's a bolt action, dual action, semi or full auto or holds 15 rounds!. We just don't need quick change magazines. Cops don't need them either!!! Let them spray their 15 rounds on full auto, because they will miss more people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need them until you do need them.
Click to expand...

Show us a time when one was needed


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Voluntarily doing things won't placate the gun control people. They will demand codification, and that will lead to end runs using said codificiation to make owning a semi auto long rifle as difficult as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marty, with all due respect....I think you're missing the point.
> 
> I agree they have a end goal of disarming America.   But that doesn't mean we can't do common sense things on our own to make sure we voluntarily do what we can to prevent our guns from getting into the wrong hands.
Click to expand...


What point? How would this have stopped these two current shootings?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

KissMy said:


> Show us a time when one was needed



Aren't you one of those who considers Trump a Tyrant?


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control freaks is we know what you want as an end game.
> 
> In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.
> 
> Is that infringement or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason for quick change magazine in a self defense gun. A CCW permit should not cost more or be more difficult to obtain than a drivers license. A potential terrorist should not be allowed to drive, fly, own or access a car, truck, plane, gun, explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion. When cops give up their semi's, then you can talk.
> 
> How does one decide a person is a potential terrorist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if it's a bolt action, dual action, semi or full auto or holds 15 rounds!. We just don't need quick change magazines. Cops don't need them either!!! Let them spray their 15 rounds on full auto, because they will miss more people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need them until you do need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us a time when one was needed
Click to expand...


North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> What point? How would this have stopped these two current shootings?



Oh boy <sigh>

never mind.


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point? How would this have stopped these two current shootings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy <sigh>
> 
> never mind.
Click to expand...


Why?

I understand where you are coming from, but gun controllers would twist this gesture into something they could use for their overall goal, i.e. first de facto and then de jure disarmament.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> Why?
> I understand where you are coming from, but gun controllers would twist this gesture into something they could use for their overall goal, i.e. first de facto and then de jure disarmament.



Marty, millions of responsible gun owners ALREADY lock up their long rifles.
We don't have to tell them we're being responsible gun owners.
It's just something we could quietly do on our own.   It could possibly prevent a theft of an AR15 for example that was subsequently used in a shooting.   

Is it even a good idea to leave rifles unsecured when we're away from home?


----------



## KissMy

martybegan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason for quick change magazine in a self defense gun. A CCW permit should not cost more or be more difficult to obtain than a drivers license. A potential terrorist should not be allowed to drive, fly, own or access a car, truck, plane, gun, explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion. When cops give up their semi's, then you can talk.
> 
> How does one decide a person is a potential terrorist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if it's a bolt action, dual action, semi or full auto or holds 15 rounds!. We just don't need quick change magazines. Cops don't need them either!!! Let them spray their 15 rounds on full auto, because they will miss more people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need them until you do need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us a time when one was needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

The police did not need more magazines, they needed to shoot them in the head, to where armor & ban the criminals access to those assault weapons. Nothing is perfect, but we can help prevent the terrorist easy access without infringing our rights to self defense.


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> I understand where you are coming from, but gun controllers would twist this gesture into something they could use for their overall goal, i.e. first de facto and then de jure disarmament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marty, millions of responsible gun owners ALREADY lock up their long rifles.
> We don't have to tell them we're being responsible gun owners.
> It's just something we could quietly do on our own.   It could possibly prevent a theft of an AR15 for example that was subsequently used in a shooting.
> 
> Is it even a good idea to leave rifles unsecured when we're away from home?
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. Proper storage is a duty of people exercising their RKBA.

What happens is people who don't like RBKA see storage requirements as a way to ban the guns, not regulate them.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

KissMy said:


> ban the criminals access to those assault weapons..



Here we go again......

How would you propose we ban just the criminals access to those "assault weapons" and not infringe on the Constitutional Rights of everyone else?

Hasn't that been sufficiently done with the 10,000+ gun laws already on the books?

Maybe it's time to take a different approach?  Maybe we should look at the SOCIAL POLICIES that are creating so many hateful, disturbed people?


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion. When cops give up their semi's, then you can talk.
> 
> How does one decide a person is a potential terrorist?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if it's a bolt action, dual action, semi or full auto or holds 15 rounds!. We just don't need quick change magazines. Cops don't need them either!!! Let them spray their 15 rounds on full auto, because they will miss more people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need them until you do need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us a time when one was needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The police did not need more magazines, they needed armor & ban the criminals access to those assault weapons. Nothing is perfect, but we can help prevent the terrorist easy access without infringing our rights to self defense.
Click to expand...


The criminals were already felons and got their guns illegally, and then modified a few of them illegally. 

Sorry, but "JUST DO SOMETHING" does not void the 2nd amendment, and my rights, which are already being violated by NYC.


----------



## Pilot1

What the Media, Politicians and many call "Assault Weapons" are just typical semi automatic rifles that have some resemblance COSMETICALLY to a military rifle.  However, the intent of the Second Amendment was to make sure average citizens could have weapons the could CARRY (bear) that were similar to the military.  

In reality, I can shoot my lever action or pump action rifle as fast as my semi autos.  Very few deaths occur by people using a rifle, any rifle.  It is just the Media glorifies these isolated shooting, and works people up with pure EMOTION, and the politicians do the same thing.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> No, it isn't. Proper storage is a duty of people exercising their RKBA.
> What happens is people who don't like RBKA see storage requirements as a way to ban the guns, not regulate them.



WHAT REQUIREMENT are you talking about ?????

If you leave long guns at home unsecured while you are away you are definitely NOT a responsible gun owner.

I'm beginning to see what some on the Left are talking about.   omg


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, you commie dick sucking fucktard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Hand grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control nuts is we know what you want as an end game.
> 
> In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.
> 
> Is that infringement or not?
Click to expand...


I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  So you are wrong about our end game.  There may be some who want that but that'll never happen.  So what we want is to lower the number of victims at the hands of nuts.  You would rather deal with the carnage just so you don't have to give in one inch to us.

So, I hope you lose elections.  That's the only thing that will change your mind.  BY FORCE.

We won't come take your guns we will just not sell guns that hold more than 4 bullets at a time anymore.  Congrats.  Your guns just became more valuable.  You can sell them as used guns for a fortune.  You just can't buy them new anymore.  Easy.


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets.  This gun should remain legal.  It's clearly for hunting.
> 
> I know you gun nuts want to be able to protect yourselves from the government but guess what?  Who's going to protect us from you?  Even though you personally will never do a mass shooting, too many of your kind will and this needs to stop.
> 
> The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun.  It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal.  I say 5 is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is about the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively from enemies.
> 
> Hunting is a side benefit.
> 
> You don't get to say it
> 
> If 5 is good enough, why don't we limit cops to that as well?
Click to expand...


Because cops are hired to protect us.

I just saw a movie where the US Government gave 5 Apache's rifles, but they didn't give every Apache one.  Those 5 were police.  The other Apache could rent out guns to hunt but had to turn them in when they came back.

Should you have a nuke?  Why not?  Russia has one.  What if Russia attacked you?  So should you be allowed to have a nuke?

We can make it so eventually your enemies can't get their hands on assault rifles so your revolver will do just fine.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

sealybobo said:


> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  So you are wrong about our end game.  There may be some who want that but that'll never happen.  So what we want is to lower the number of victims at the hands of nuts.  You would rather deal with the carnage just so you don't have to give in one inch to us.
> 
> So, I hope you lose elections.  That's the only thing that will change your mind.  BY FORCE.
> 
> We won't come take your guns we will just not sell guns that hold more than 4 bullets at a time anymore.  Congrats.  Your guns just became more valuable.  You can sell them as used guns for a fortune.  You just can't buy them new anymore.  Easy.



There is no need for any of that.
More gun restrictions will simply make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

What's desperately needed is a honest review of destructive Social Policies that are creating all this violence.  However, the Left is vehemently opposed to any such discussion.


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. Proper storage is a duty of people exercising their RKBA.
> What happens is people who don't like RBKA see storage requirements as a way to ban the guns, not regulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT REQUIREMENT are you talking about ?????
> 
> If you leave long guns at home unsecured while you are away you are definitely NOT a responsible gun owner.
> 
> I'm beginning to see what some on the Left are talking about.   omg
Click to expand...


Gun ownership in New York: What’s the law?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

sealybobo said:


> Because cops are hired to protect us..



Average Police response time is around 10 - 20 minutes (depending on where you are)  for a crisis 911 call

When seconds count.......


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> Gun ownership in New York: What’s the law?



Marty, often I agree with you.  But let's just agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they aren't. They are for defending against thousands of citizens making too much noise at a Vegas concert. Shoot 600 of them, to get some peace & quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, you commie dick sucking fucktard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make terrorist more efficient so they can kill many more citizens even faster with these WMD's  Why not allow them to buy Hand grenades, RPG's, 500-lb bombs, rockets, mortars, tanks & nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> The reason RKBA supporters don't trust Gun Control nuts is we know what you want as an end game.
> 
> In NYC it would take me 3-6 months and around $500 just to get a permit/license to keep a revolver in my own apartment. Not a CCW, a residence permit/license.
> 
> Is that infringement or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  So you are wrong about our end game.  There may be some who want that but that'll never happen.  So what we want is to lower the number of victims at the hands of nuts.  You would rather deal with the carnage just so you don't have to give in one inch to us.
> 
> So, I hope you lose elections.  That's the only thing that will change your mind.  BY FORCE.
> 
> We won't come take your guns we will just not sell guns that hold more than 4 bullets at a time anymore.  Congrats.  Your guns just became more valuable.  You can sell them as used guns for a fortune.  You just can't buy them new anymore.  Easy.
Click to expand...


I am not wrong, you are just a liar. 

I want MY gun rights back before I consider any further increase in gun laws. Get NYC to allow me to get a freaking revolver in less than 6 months and then we can talk. 

Grandfathering is an abridgement of future rights.

And put your money where your mouth is. If 4 rounds is the limit you agree to kill yourself the first time a lawful person runs out of bullets and the bad guy kills them.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets.  This gun should remain legal.  It's clearly for hunting.
> 
> I know you gun nuts want to be able to protect yourselves from the government but guess what?  Who's going to protect us from you?  Even though you personally will never do a mass shooting, too many of your kind will and this needs to stop.
> 
> The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun.  It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal.  I say 5 is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is about the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively from enemies.
> 
> Hunting is a side benefit.
> 
> You don't get to say it
> 
> If 5 is good enough, why don't we limit cops to that as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because cops are hired to protect us.
> 
> I just saw a movie where the US Government gave 5 Apache's rifles, but they didn't give every Apache one.  Those 5 were police.  The other Apache could rent out guns to hunt but had to turn them in when they came back.
> 
> Should you have a nuke?  Why not?  Russia has one.  What if Russia attacked you?  So should you be allowed to have a nuke?
> 
> We can make it so eventually your enemies can't get their hands on assault rifles so your revolver will do just fine.
Click to expand...


Cops are in place to stop us from settling our disputes violently on our own. Cops have ZERO requirement to actually protect anyone. Their main roles are deterrence, and investigation. 

Argument ad absurdum. 

Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.



Not to mention that bad guys can EASILY slip them across the border that the left wants wide open.
Also, there are probably already 100 million "Tyranny Suppression" weapons already in the hands of Americans.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

The biggest "Gun" problem that we have in this nation is the Left's refusal to have an honest discussion about the root cause.

Fix the root cause.....Horrible, damaging Leftist Social Policies, and you fix the problem.

Remember, America did not have this problem before the rise of Leftist policies and Progressivism.


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Post, a major U.S. tabloid owned by conservative-leaning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, implored President Donald Trump on its cover Monday to ban assault weapons following several mass shootings in recent days.
> 
> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets.  This gun should remain legal.  It's clearly for hunting.
> 
> I know you gun nuts want to be able to protect yourselves from the government but guess what?  Who's going to protect us from you?  Even though you personally will never do a mass shooting, too many of your kind will and this needs to stop.
> 
> The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun.  It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal.  I say 5 is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is about the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively from enemies.
> 
> Hunting is a side benefit.
> 
> You don't get to say it
> 
> If 5 is good enough, why don't we limit cops to that as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because cops are hired to protect us.
> 
> I just saw a movie where the US Government gave 5 Apache's rifles, but they didn't give every Apache one.  Those 5 were police.  The other Apache could rent out guns to hunt but had to turn them in when they came back.
> 
> Should you have a nuke?  Why not?  Russia has one.  What if Russia attacked you?  So should you be allowed to have a nuke?
> 
> We can make it so eventually your enemies can't get their hands on assault rifles so your revolver will do just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cops are in place to stop us from settling our disputes violently on our own. Cops have ZERO requirement to actually protect anyone. Their main roles are deterrence, and investigation.
> 
> Argument ad absurdum.
> 
> Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.
Click to expand...


Very few of these nuts would have gone with a laser printer gun.  Can it happen?  Yes.  Will it happen?  Yes.  But for the most part the nut is going to go with what he can easily get his hands on.  In the future it will be a 4 round rifle, a 10 capacity glock, a 5 shotgun shell shotgun.  These will be the only guns you can get your hands on at the store.  And so people will die at the hands of someone holding a shotgun.  That's sad but there is nothing we can do about that.  Shotguns are on the list of legal weapons you can own.  Why?  Because people hunt with them.  No one hunts with an ak 47.


----------



## sealybobo

BasicHumanUnit said:


> The biggest "Gun" problem that we have in this nation is the Left's refusal to have an honest discussion about the root cause.
> 
> Fix the root cause.....Horrible, damaging Leftist Social Policies, and you fix the problem.
> 
> Remember, America did not have this problem before the rise of Leftist policies and Progressivism.



We also didn't have this problem until Reagan got in bed with the NRA.


----------



## sealybobo

BasicHumanUnit said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that bad guys can EASILY slip them across the border that the left wants wide open.
> Also, there are probably already 100 million "Tyranny Suppression" weapons already in the hands of Americans.
Click to expand...


We may not be able to stop Juan from smuggling 1 illegal gun across the border but we can stop Walmart from selling them to all the white guys who go legally buy them and then go out to find Juan so they can murder him because he's brown.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

sealybobo said:


> We also didn't have this problem until Reagan got in bed with the NRA.



In all fairness, Reagan was shot by a Leftist......and the NRA does not condone gun violence.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

sealybobo said:


> We may not be able to stop Juan from smuggling 1 illegal gun across the border but we can stop Walmart from selling them to all the white guys who go legally buy them and then go out to find Juan so they can murder him because he's brown.



Ok, you've gone off the deep end.

My bad.  I thought you were going to be reasonable.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons, or weapons of war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets.  This gun should remain legal.  It's clearly for hunting.
> 
> I know you gun nuts want to be able to protect yourselves from the government but guess what?  Who's going to protect us from you?  Even though you personally will never do a mass shooting, too many of your kind will and this needs to stop.
> 
> The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun.  It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal.  I say 5 is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is about the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively from enemies.
> 
> Hunting is a side benefit.
> 
> You don't get to say it
> 
> If 5 is good enough, why don't we limit cops to that as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because cops are hired to protect us.
> 
> I just saw a movie where the US Government gave 5 Apache's rifles, but they didn't give every Apache one.  Those 5 were police.  The other Apache could rent out guns to hunt but had to turn them in when they came back.
> 
> Should you have a nuke?  Why not?  Russia has one.  What if Russia attacked you?  So should you be allowed to have a nuke?
> 
> We can make it so eventually your enemies can't get their hands on assault rifles so your revolver will do just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cops are in place to stop us from settling our disputes violently on our own. Cops have ZERO requirement to actually protect anyone. Their main roles are deterrence, and investigation.
> 
> Argument ad absurdum.
> 
> Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very few of these nuts would have gone with a laser printer gun.  Can it happen?  Yes.  Will it happen?  Yes.  But for the most part the nut is going to go with what he can easily get his hands on.  In the future it will be a 4 round rifle, a 10 capacity glock, a 5 shotgun shell shotgun.  These will be the only guns you can get your hands on at the store.  And so people will die at the hands of someone holding a shotgun.  That's sad but there is nothing we can do about that.  Shotguns are on the list of legal weapons you can own.  Why?  Because people hunt with them.  No one hunts with an ak 47.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.


----------



## KissMy

BasicHumanUnit said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you ban assault rifles, people who want them will still get them unless you also ban lathes and 3d printers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that bad guys can EASILY slip them across the border that the left wants wide open.
> Also, there are probably already 100 million "Tyranny Suppression" weapons already in the hands of Americans.
Click to expand...

Funny how we have Tyranny with those weapons.


----------



## sealybobo

BasicHumanUnit said:


> The biggest "Gun" problem that we have in this nation is the Left's refusal to have an honest discussion about the root cause.
> 
> Fix the root cause.....Horrible, damaging Leftist Social Policies, and you fix the problem.
> 
> Remember, America did not have this problem before the rise of Leftist policies and Progressivism.



During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States.  

Reagan ultimately endorsed the Brady Bill in the early 1990s (it was, of course, named after his press secretary, James Brady, who was wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt), which was a significant step because it gave Republicans in Congress political cover in supporting the gun measure.


----------



## Flash

martybegan said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.



It is about the citizens having the ability to fight against this:


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

sealybobo said:


> During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States.
> 
> Reagan ultimately endorsed the Brady Bill in the early 1990s (it was, of course, named after his press secretary, James Brady, who was wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt), which was a significant step because it gave Republicans in Congress political cover in supporting the gun measure.



And remember, Reagan was so popular because his election was one of the early waves of Americas visible frustration with leftists policies.....which were well on their way of destroying family life and social harmony.


----------



## sealybobo

BasicHumanUnit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also didn't have this problem until Reagan got in bed with the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, Reagan was shot by a Leftist......and the NRA does not condone gun violence.
Click to expand...


Was he?  His father was rich.  he played football, basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball, learned to play the piano, and was elected class president twice.

Other than he shot Reagan, what makes you think he's a leftist?


----------



## martybegan

Flash said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is about the citizens having the ability to fight against this:
Click to expand...


Or at a more base level, the inherent right of every person to be able to defend themselves effectively, against any realistic threat.


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .



The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".

What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.

Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.


----------



## sealybobo

BasicHumanUnit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States.
> 
> Reagan ultimately endorsed the Brady Bill in the early 1990s (it was, of course, named after his press secretary, James Brady, who was wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt), which was a significant step because it gave Republicans in Congress political cover in supporting the gun measure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And remember, Reagan was so popular because his election was one of the early waves of Americas visible frustration with leftists policies.....which were well on their way of destroying family life and social harmony.
Click to expand...


Well guys like Reagan and Bush sent our jobs overseas, let the illegals in, broke unions...

This was the destruction of teh family.  If one guy could no longer provide for a family of 4, this is why crime comes from.  And then their kids do the same shit because they grow up without a 2 parent home and they have bastards.

Look at how today we have like 51% divorce rate.  No kid grows up completely fine in a broke home.  Some survive the experience but it's not good.  For every 1 Ben Carson you have 100 kids who grow up and stay in poverty.


----------



## Flash

Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.

I have 29 AR-15s now.

I use them for legal purposes.

I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.

Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
Click to expand...

What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.


----------



## martybegan

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
Click to expand...


I point out as Exhibit A, NYC's laws that make you wait 3-6 months and pay over $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in your home.


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
Click to expand...



What do you consider "common sense"?  

Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.


----------



## Flash

martybegan said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I point out as Exhibit A, NYC's laws that make you wait 3-6 months and pay over $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in your home.
Click to expand...



On a state level the SAFE Act in New York is a very oppressive law infringing upon the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms.

I have several examples of the oppression.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

sealybobo said:


> Well guys like Reagan and Bush sent our jobs overseas, let the illegals in, broke unions...
> 
> This was the destruction of teh family.  If one guy could no longer provide for a family of 4, this is why crime comes from.  And then their kids do the same shit because they grow up without a 2 parent home and they have bastards.
> 
> Look at how today we have like 51% divorce rate.  No kid grows up completely fine in a broke home.  Some survive the experience but it's not good.  For every 1 Ben Carson you have 100 kids who grow up and stay in poverty.



Many so called "Republican" Presidents were nothing more than Globalists.
Especially both Bush's.
Paul Ryan and John Boehnor, while not presidents, were both high ranking Globalist figures posing as "Republicans" But surely you knew all that (I hope)?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

KissMy said:


> Funny how we have Tyranny with those weapons.



Firstly....it's not funny.

Secondly, you don't know what "tyranny is.   Go spend a month in Venezuela where the left has completely "Triumphed"
Then get back to us....if you survive (unlikely)


----------



## 007

Flash said:


> Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.
> 
> I have 29 AR-15s now.
> 
> I use them for legal purposes.
> 
> I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.
> 
> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?


But an AR-15 looks SCARY. Never mind the fact that a 12 gauge shot gun chambered for 3" mags and loaded with double ott buck is FAR more deadly in close proximity than an AR-15, but it doesn't look SCARY. 

Trying to ban AR's is nothing more than getting a foot in the door to ban other guns. It's the slippery slope, and there's no denying it.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.
> 
> I have 29 AR-15s now.
> 
> I use them for legal purposes.
> 
> I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.
> 
> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?



You can keep them.  They just won't make them anymore.

And why do you have so many you fucking weirdo.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices

Shotgun
Revolver
Muzzleloader
Rifle that holds 4 bullets

Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.

Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.

Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day. 

The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.
> 
> I have 29 AR-15s now.
> 
> I use them for legal purposes.
> 
> I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.
> 
> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep them.  They just won't make them anymore.
> 
> And why do you have so many you fucking weirdo.
Click to expand...



See you are being unreasonable.

I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.   It is a good hobby to have.  I don't bitch about your hobbies and you should not be an asshole and call my hobbies weird.  

The stupid Moon Bats will be never be satisfied with simply a grandfather clause.   In the states where the Moon Bats are in charge they have put in far more restrictive and oppressive laws.  You can't trust Liberals to be reasonable, ever.

I have never used any of what you Moon Bats call "assault weapons" for an illegal purpose so why should I be punished and have my rights taken away because somebody else uses them for illegal purposes?  That is un-American, isn't it?


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
Click to expand...



You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.

Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## KissMy

007 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.
> 
> I have 29 AR-15s now.
> 
> I use them for legal purposes.
> 
> I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.
> 
> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> But an AR-15 looks SCARY. Never mind the fact that a 12 gauge shot gun chambered for 3" mags and loaded with double ott buck is FAR more deadly in close proximity than an AR-15, but it doesn't look SCARY.
> 
> Trying to ban AR's is nothing more than getting a foot in the door to ban other guns. It's the slippery slope, and there's no denying it.
Click to expand...

I'm cool with shotguns as long they don't accept any replaceable magazines. If they do, then terrorist will keep slapping in 25 round mags for continuous mass killing power!


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> [
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.



You are confused Moon Bat.

The great majority of gun deaths in this country are in Democrat controlled inner city shitholes among minorities, gang members and druggies.  Most of the deaths are caused by illegally obtained pistols where only a few shots are fired.

What you stupid Moon Bats call assault weapons are very seldom used in crime.  In relative terms very few people are killed each year by them.  All the people killed by AR-15s in this country in a year does not equal what is normally killed in a shithole like Chicago in a couple of weeks.

You are barking up the wrong tree there Sport.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
Click to expand...


You are just hoping that the alligator eats you last.

There is zero reason to ban modern side arm technology because some progressives want it. Why should the government have access to semi auto pistols if citizens can't have them?

The police are not some new class of Gentried Knights, who own the rights to arms. Our ancestors left Europe for that reason, amongst others.


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.
> 
> I have 29 AR-15s now.
> 
> I use them for legal purposes.
> 
> I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.
> 
> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> But an AR-15 looks SCARY. Never mind the fact that a 12 gauge shot gun chambered for 3" mags and loaded with double ott buck is FAR more deadly in close proximity than an AR-15, but it doesn't look SCARY.
> 
> Trying to ban AR's is nothing more than getting a foot in the door to ban other guns. It's the slippery slope, and there's no denying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm cool with shotguns as long they don't accept any replaceable magazines. If they do, then terrorist will keep slapping in 25 round mags for continuous mass killing power!
Click to expand...


A magazine like that would jam more than likely. 

And until the police arrive, or better yet an armed civilian is there to stop the attack early, it really doesn't matter if a guy has to take 1 second to reload a magazine.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> The great majority of gun deaths in this country are in Democrat controlled inner city shitholes among minorities, gang members and druggies.  Most of the deaths are caused by illegally obtained pistols where only a few shots are fired.
> 
> What you stupid Moon Bats call assault weapons are very seldom used in crime.  In relative terms very few people are killed each year by them.  All the people killed by AR-15s in this country in a year does not equal what is normally killed in a shithole like Chicago in a couple of weeks.
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree there Sport.
Click to expand...


No one cares about those shootings.  What we care about is safe quiet nice neighborhoods that get shot up.  El Paso was voted nicest place in America.  Mass shooter.  There was a shooter at a fucking garlic festival last week.  The vegas shooter shot up country music fans.  Sandy Hook were white affluent kids. 

I know you don't care about gang members but what about us?  Do you care about us?  We can no longer live in fear because you want to carry about a fucking assault rifle.  Fuck you they are banned.

And as Trump said, "take the guns first then ask questions later".  LOL.


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
Click to expand...



Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.  

Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?

Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?  

Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
Click to expand...


Because I don't want to wait for you to snap.  

I have a friend who says when he's one day diagnosed as terminal, he's going to take out about 20 people who are on his hit list.  It would be nice if he didn't have such a high powered weapon.  I wish him, and you, didn't own them.  But you do so feel free to keep them.  But from now on we no longer sell them commercially.  You can keep yours.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I don't want to wait for you to snap.
> 
> I have a friend who says when he's one day diagnosed as terminal, he's going to take out about 20 people who are on his hit list.  It would be nice if he didn't have such a high powered weapon.  I wish him, and you, didn't own them.  But you do so feel free to keep them.  But from now on we no longer sell them commercially.  You can keep yours.
Click to expand...


Unless they are all in one group, he could use the muzzleloader to accomplish that if he planned it right.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
Click to expand...


The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.  

This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.

I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I don't want to wait for you to snap.
> 
> I have a friend who says when he's one day diagnosed as terminal, he's going to take out about 20 people who are on his hit list.  It would be nice if he didn't have such a high powered weapon.  I wish him, and you, didn't own them.  But you do so feel free to keep them.  But from now on we no longer sell them commercially.  You can keep yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless they are all in one group, he could use the muzzleloader to accomplish that if he planned it right.
Click to expand...


But he will choose the gun that holds 20 rounds.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.
> 
> This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.
> 
> I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.
Click to expand...


Hunting. Is. Not. What. The. 2nd. Amendment. Is. About. 

I also doesn't say you are limited to firearms that are old technology, or something a quisling such as yourself would be willing to give up.


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> [
> 
> No one cares about those shootings.  What we care about is safe quiet nice neighborhoods that get shot up.  El Paso was voted nicest place in America.  Mass shooter.  There was a shooter at a fucking garlic festival last week.  The vegas shooter shot up country music fans.  Sandy Hook were white affluent kids.
> 
> I know you don't care about gang members but what about us?  Do you care about us?  We can no longer live in fear because you want to carry about a fucking assault rifle.  Fuck you they are banned.
> 
> And as Trump said, "take the guns first then ask questions later".  LOL.



El Paso is fucking shithole.

I visited there when my wife and I went out to see our son at Ft Bliss off on deployment.

In fact my wife and I went to that Walmart where the shooting took place to buy a few items for our drive back to Florida.  We were probably the only English speaking people in the store went we were there.  It was crawling with Illegals.

If you want to blame anybody then blame Walmart for posting the store as a "gun free zone".  That meant that nobody could carry a concealed weapon for protection.

I don't give a shit if you want to be "safe" or not.  There are nutcases out there that will do you harm no matter what the gun laws are and no matter what you want.  The only thing the gun laws do is take away the right for you to protect yourself.

Taking away my 29 ARs or restricting me from buying more like you stupid Moon Bats want to do will not make you one bit safer.


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I don't want to wait for you to snap.
> 
> I have a friend who says when he's one day diagnosed as terminal, he's going to take out about 20 people who are on his hit list.  It would be nice if he didn't have such a high powered weapon.  I wish him, and you, didn't own them.  But you do so feel free to keep them.  But from now on we no longer sell them commercially.  You can keep yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless they are all in one group, he could use the muzzleloader to accomplish that if he planned it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he will choose the gun that holds 20 rounds.
Click to expand...


So what?

Still doesn't mean they can be banned. 

Sorry, but the "keep the ones you have" denies my right to get one should I so choose. 

Rights are Rights.


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.
> 
> This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.
> 
> I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting. Is. Not. What. The. 2nd. Amendment. Is. About.
> 
> I also doesn't say you are limited to firearms that are old technology, or something a quisling such as yourself would be willing to give up.
Click to expand...


What we are asking for is to simply list these WMD's as Title 2 weapons or NFA firearms.  We already do this in the USA.  How did they get away with classifying and regulating some weapons as title 2 or NFA's?  


*Title II weapons*, or *NFA firearms*, are designations of certain weapons under the United States National Firearms Act (NFA).

These are weapons requiring a Type 01 Federal Firearms License (FFL) as well as a Class 3 Special Occupation Tax (SOT) to sell, and an ATF Form 4 (transfer of registration) with $200 tax stamp to purchase. Also a Type 07 FFL (manufacturer) with a Class 2 Special Occupation Tax is qualified to purchase and sell. [1] The restrictions apply to certain firearms, explosive munitions, and other devices which are federally regulated by the NFA.[2][3] Any violation of the NFA is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.[4] Per the National Rifle Association's _Summary of Gun Control Act of 1968_:[5]

Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance). Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any *Title II weapon*.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which enforces federal firearms law, refers to such weapons as "*NFA firearms*".[6] NFA firearms include machine guns, short-barreled riflesand shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers and "any other weapon" (AOW), such as disguised or improvised firearms.[3] Title I weapons, or GCA firearms, are standard rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Explosive devices such as bombs or grenades are regulated as NFA firearms (destructive devices). Explosive materials are not considered NFA firearms; they are regulated under the Organized Crime Control Act.[7]


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.
> 
> This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.
> 
> I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting. Is. Not. What. The. 2nd. Amendment. Is. About.
> 
> I also doesn't say you are limited to firearms that are old technology, or something a quisling such as yourself would be willing to give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we are asking for is to simply list these WMD's as Title 2 weapons or NFA firearms.  We already do this in the USA.  How did they get away with classifying and regulating some weapons as title 2 or NFA's?
> 
> 
> *Title II weapons*, or *NFA firearms*, are designations of certain weapons under the United States National Firearms Act (NFA).
> 
> These are weapons requiring a Type 01 Federal Firearms License (FFL) as well as a Class 3 Special Occupation Tax (SOT) to sell, and an ATF Form 4 (transfer of registration) with $200 tax stamp to purchase. Also a Type 07 FFL (manufacturer) with a Class 2 Special Occupation Tax is qualified to purchase and sell. [1] The restrictions apply to certain firearms, explosive munitions, and other devices which are federally regulated by the NFA.[2][3] Any violation of the NFA is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.[4] Per the National Rifle Association's _Summary of Gun Control Act of 1968_:[5]
> 
> Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance). Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any *Title II weapon*.
> 
> The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which enforces federal firearms law, refers to such weapons as "*NFA firearms*".[6] NFA firearms include machine guns, short-barreled riflesand shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers and "any other weapon" (AOW), such as disguised or improvised firearms.[3] Title I weapons, or GCA firearms, are standard rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
> 
> Explosive devices such as bombs or grenades are regulated as NFA firearms (destructive devices). Explosive materials are not considered NFA firearms; they are regulated under the Organized Crime Control Act.[7]
Click to expand...


A semi-automatic rifle is not what those laws were about. They are for fully automatic weapons and long weapons that are easy to conceal. 

Sorry, no new laws until I get my rights back. Get NYC to give me a revolver in less than 6 freaking months, and for less than $500 in fees, then I will be willing to talk. 

And a semi automatic rifle is not a WMD, it is a conventional weapon. NBC weapons are WMD's.

That you have to exaggerate with a term like that shows the weakness of your argument, and the shallowness of you character.


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.
> 
> This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.
> 
> I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.
Click to expand...


Where does it say that I can't own an AR-15 you stupid Moon Bat?  All it says that for the security of a free nation the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Only stupid Moon Bats like you want to define arms to be something you pussies don't like.

You never answered my question.  Why should my Constitutional rights be infringed because somebody else does something illegal?  What kind of an American are you to take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else may abuse them?

Just mind your own fucking business.  If you don't want to own an AR then fine.  I don't care.  Just stop being and asshole and advocating taking rights away from other people.  That is not cool.  In fact you are being a shithead.  Typical for a Moon Bat.


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.
> 
> This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.
> 
> I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting. Is. Not. What. The. 2nd. Amendment. Is. About.
> 
> I also doesn't say you are limited to firearms that are old technology, or something a quisling such as yourself would be willing to give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we are asking for is to simply list these WMD's as Title 2 weapons or NFA firearms.  We already do this in the USA.  How did they get away with classifying and regulating some weapons as title 2 or NFA's?
> 
> 
> *Title II weapons*, or *NFA firearms*, are designations of certain weapons under the United States National Firearms Act (NFA).
> 
> These are weapons requiring a Type 01 Federal Firearms License (FFL) as well as a Class 3 Special Occupation Tax (SOT) to sell, and an ATF Form 4 (transfer of registration) with $200 tax stamp to purchase. Also a Type 07 FFL (manufacturer) with a Class 2 Special Occupation Tax is qualified to purchase and sell. [1] The restrictions apply to certain firearms, explosive munitions, and other devices which are federally regulated by the NFA.[2][3] Any violation of the NFA is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.[4] Per the National Rifle Association's _Summary of Gun Control Act of 1968_:[5]
> 
> Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance). Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any *Title II weapon*.
> 
> The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which enforces federal firearms law, refers to such weapons as "*NFA firearms*".[6] NFA firearms include machine guns, short-barreled riflesand shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers and "any other weapon" (AOW), such as disguised or improvised firearms.[3] Title I weapons, or GCA firearms, are standard rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
> 
> Explosive devices such as bombs or grenades are regulated as NFA firearms (destructive devices). Explosive materials are not considered NFA firearms; they are regulated under the Organized Crime Control Act.[7]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A semi-automatic rifle is not what those laws were about. They are for fully automatic weapons and long weapons that are easy to conceal.
> 
> Sorry, no new laws until I get my rights back. Get NYC to give me a revolver in less than 6 freaking months, and for less than $500 in fees, then I will be willing to talk.
> 
> And a semi automatic rifle is not a WMD, it is a conventional weapon. NBC weapons are WMD's.
> 
> That you have to exaggerate with a term like that shows the weakness of your argument, and the shallowness of you character.
Click to expand...


That's a states rights issue.  You don't like it, move.

I'm talking about re classifying these guns as Title 2 or NFA firearms on a national level.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.
> 
> This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.
> 
> I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that I can't own an AR-15 you stupid Moon Bat?  All it says that for the security of a free nation the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Only stupid Moon Bats like you want to define arms to be something you pussies don't like.
> 
> You never answered my question.  Why should my Constitutional rights be infringed because somebody else does something illegal?  What kind of an American are you to take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else may abuse them?
> 
> Just mind your own fucking business.  If you don't want to own an AR then fine.  I don't care.  Just stop being and asshole and advocating taking rights away from other people.  That is not cool.  In fact you are being a shithead.  Typical for a Moon Bat.
Click to expand...



You can answer your own question by answering this question.  Why do we classify some weapons as *Title II weapons*, or *NFA firearms?

Why?  Because these weapons are too dangerous to let just anyone own.

Sorry, but our society deemed certain weapons as Title 2 or NFA firearms.  I don't hear you crying too much about not being able to own one of those.  So you'll be fine when they put assault rifles that carry 20 bullets on that list.  

You can keep the ones you have.   We just don't make them anymore.  Better stock up on ammo.*


----------



## sealybobo

martybegan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.
> 
> This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.
> 
> I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting. Is. Not. What. The. 2nd. Amendment. Is. About.
> 
> I also doesn't say you are limited to firearms that are old technology, or something a quisling such as yourself would be willing to give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we are asking for is to simply list these WMD's as Title 2 weapons or NFA firearms.  We already do this in the USA.  How did they get away with classifying and regulating some weapons as title 2 or NFA's?
> 
> 
> *Title II weapons*, or *NFA firearms*, are designations of certain weapons under the United States National Firearms Act (NFA).
> 
> These are weapons requiring a Type 01 Federal Firearms License (FFL) as well as a Class 3 Special Occupation Tax (SOT) to sell, and an ATF Form 4 (transfer of registration) with $200 tax stamp to purchase. Also a Type 07 FFL (manufacturer) with a Class 2 Special Occupation Tax is qualified to purchase and sell. [1] The restrictions apply to certain firearms, explosive munitions, and other devices which are federally regulated by the NFA.[2][3] Any violation of the NFA is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.[4] Per the National Rifle Association's _Summary of Gun Control Act of 1968_:[5]
> 
> Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance). Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any *Title II weapon*.
> 
> The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which enforces federal firearms law, refers to such weapons as "*NFA firearms*".[6] NFA firearms include machine guns, short-barreled riflesand shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers and "any other weapon" (AOW), such as disguised or improvised firearms.[3] Title I weapons, or GCA firearms, are standard rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
> 
> Explosive devices such as bombs or grenades are regulated as NFA firearms (destructive devices). Explosive materials are not considered NFA firearms; they are regulated under the Organized Crime Control Act.[7]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A semi-automatic rifle is not what those laws were about. They are for fully automatic weapons and long weapons that are easy to conceal.
> 
> Sorry, no new laws until I get my rights back. Get NYC to give me a revolver in less than 6 freaking months, and for less than $500 in fees, then I will be willing to talk.
> 
> And a semi automatic rifle is not a WMD, it is a conventional weapon. NBC weapons are WMD's.
> 
> That you have to exaggerate with a term like that shows the weakness of your argument, and the shallowness of you character.
Click to expand...


You are right.  Semi automatics are not currently considered title 2 or NFA firearms.  Not at the moment.  Stay tuned.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.
> 
> This is for our society/government to decide.  What guns are WMD's and what guns are right for legal citizens to own.  I say 10 rounds max capacity.  No more than that.  And don't you dare complain because you gun nuts swear the time it takes you to change magazines will not slow you down one bit.  I know that's a lie but feel free to keep claiming it.  It's one of the arguments I use for why there should be no 20 round capacity guns.  They should be illegal.  Don't worry you'll never miss them.  You can still go to the range and get your hard on hitting plates.
> 
> I just want to shoot a deer and it doesn't take more than 2 bullets to kill one if you are good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that I can't own an AR-15 you stupid Moon Bat?  All it says that for the security of a free nation the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Only stupid Moon Bats like you want to define arms to be something you pussies don't like.
> 
> You never answered my question.  Why should my Constitutional rights be infringed because somebody else does something illegal?  What kind of an American are you to take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else may abuse them?
> 
> Just mind your own fucking business.  If you don't want to own an AR then fine.  I don't care.  Just stop being and asshole and advocating taking rights away from other people.  That is not cool.  In fact you are being a shithead.  Typical for a Moon Bat.
Click to expand...


He was armed with a legally obtained weapon and was wearing a mask and bulletproof vest at the time.

The gun used in the shooting was modified to function like a rifle, Biehl noted, saying it troubled him that a civilian had been able to access that type of high-capacity firearm.

“It is fundamentally problematic,” Biehl said. “To have that level of weaponry in a civilian environment, unregulated, is problematic.”

Dayton police chief on shooting suspect's firearm: "It is fundamentally problematic. To have that level of weaponry in a civilian environment, unregulated, is problematic." 

The police chief noted that if the suspect’s bullet magazines were completely full, he would have had a maximum of 250 rounds on him at the time of the shooting.


----------



## 007

KissMy said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.
> 
> I have 29 AR-15s now.
> 
> I use them for legal purposes.
> 
> I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.
> 
> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> But an AR-15 looks SCARY. Never mind the fact that a 12 gauge shot gun chambered for 3" mags and loaded with double ott buck is FAR more deadly in close proximity than an AR-15, but it doesn't look SCARY.
> 
> Trying to ban AR's is nothing more than getting a foot in the door to ban other guns. It's the slippery slope, and there's no denying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm cool with shotguns as long they don't accept any replaceable magazines. If they do, then terrorist will keep slapping in 25 round mags for continuous mass killing power!
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the part in the Second Amendment that says... "shall not be infringed."


----------



## williepete

Flash said:


> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?


----------



## sealybobo

007 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you Moon Bats that want a ban on AR-15s.
> 
> I have 29 AR-15s now.
> 
> I use them for legal purposes.
> 
> I have no intention of ever using them for a crime.
> 
> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> But an AR-15 looks SCARY. Never mind the fact that a 12 gauge shot gun chambered for 3" mags and loaded with double ott buck is FAR more deadly in close proximity than an AR-15, but it doesn't look SCARY.
> 
> Trying to ban AR's is nothing more than getting a foot in the door to ban other guns. It's the slippery slope, and there's no denying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm cool with shotguns as long they don't accept any replaceable magazines. If they do, then terrorist will keep slapping in 25 round mags for continuous mass killing power!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you missed the part in the Second Amendment that says... "shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...


Can you tell me how did the government get away with this then?  They made "machine guns" a title 2 weapon and now it's almost impossible to get your hands on one.  Show me one post on USMB where a conservative is crying about this law.  You can't?  Then I guess you got used to the government infringing on your rights.  You'll be ok when they add assault rifles to this list.   

*Title II weapons*, or *NFA firearms*, are designations of certain weapons under the United States National Firearms Act (NFA).

These are weapons requiring a Type 01 Federal Firearms License (FFL) as well as a Class 3 Special Occupation Tax (SOT) to sell, and an ATF Form 4 (transfer of registration) with $200 tax stamp to purchase. Also a Type 07 FFL (manufacturer) with a Class 2 Special Occupation Tax is qualified to purchase and sell. [1] The restrictions apply to certain firearms, explosive munitions, and other devices which are federally regulated by the NFA.[2][3] Any violation of the NFA is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.[4] Per the National Rifle Association's _Summary of Gun Control Act of 1968_:[5]

Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance). Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any *Title II weapon*.


Isn't this infringing on your rights?  What did you do about it?  Are Republicans trying to repeal this?  When is the last time you complained about this?  So I guess if we put semi auto assault rifles on this list you'll bend over and take it just like Americans did in 1968?  

Is this infringing on your rights?  Then how did the government get away with it and what have you don't about it?  Nothing?  I thought so


----------



## sealybobo

williepete said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in owning the ARs be taken away because some other people may use AR-15s illegally?
Click to expand...

Lets reduce the number of people murdered by AR's by taking them away from people.  

You need a car to drive.  You need a shotgun or rifle to hunt.  You DON'T need a AR for anything other than to compensate for your little dick.

If the government wants you they'll get you with our without  your guns.

Oh, and I thought you guys told black people to stop resisting arrest.  You say this is why they are getting killed by cops.  But then when we discuss guns you all claim that you would resist if the government/law came to your door.  A black man couldn't get away with this.  And neither should you.  If the law says you're under arrest it's your job to fight it in court, not with your gun.


----------



## mudwhistle

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?


This debate comes up every time a white guy kills some people. It's BS. 

I remember how the media reacted to Sandyhook.....
They attacked the NRA and praised Obama.


----------



## williepete

If leftists cared about the body count, they'd be going after cell phones. They don't care about the body count. They just can't openly say they want Americans disarmed and compliant. Not yet anyway.

*Texting and driving deaths*

_14% of fatal crashes involved cell phones._
_14% of distracted driving deaths were attributed specifically to cell phone use, as opposed to other forms of distracted driving._
_4,637 people died in car crashes in 2018 due to cell phone use._
_Including the cost to people's lives, these crashes were responsible for $129 billion — or 15 percent — of the overall societal damage caused by motor vehicle crashes. This number only goes up after your primary offense._
_https://www.thezebra.com/texting-and-driving-statistics/

46 Important Texting While Driving Fatalities Statistics - HRF_


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

sealybobo said:


> Because I don't want to wait for you to snap.
> 
> I have a friend who says when he's one day diagnosed as terminal, he's going to take out about 20 people who are on his hit list.  It would be nice if he didn't have such a high powered weapon.  I wish him, and you, didn't own them.  But you do so feel free to keep them.  But from now on we no longer sell them commercially.  You can keep yours.



Cool story bruh !


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Just imagine if Hillary had won in 2016.......

By now most of South America would be here supported by US taxpayers....taxes would therefor have risen 1000%, and armed task groups would be prowling every place conservatives live with medical records and social media reports in hand, to take guns from everyone who fit "The Profile" 

Trump handled it like an American...no knee-jerking Constitutional Rights attacks.   Just good, common sense suggestions.


----------



## Leo123

Snookie said:


> It seems like the pro gun people believe in "rule from beyond the grave."
> 
> The constitution is a living document.
> 
> It is time for stricter gun control.
> 
> Stop the hating.



You got it backwards just like many leftists do.   There should be government support for owning and carrying guns.   Teach responsibility not fear and educate folks about guns and the moral responsibility that goes with owning a gun, what actually happens when a human gets shot by a gun and how to react to a situation where a mass shooter starts to brandish his gun.


----------



## sealybobo

williepete said:


> If leftists cared about the body count, they'd be going after cell phones. They don't care about the body count. They just can't openly say they want Americans disarmed and compliant. Not yet anyway.
> 
> *Texting and driving deaths*
> 
> _14% of fatal crashes involved cell phones._
> _14% of distracted driving deaths were attributed specifically to cell phone use, as opposed to other forms of distracted driving._
> _4,637 people died in car crashes in 2018 due to cell phone use._
> _Including the cost to people's lives, these crashes were responsible for $129 billion — or 15 percent — of the overall societal damage caused by motor vehicle crashes. This number only goes up after your primary offense._
> _https://www.thezebra.com/texting-and-driving-statistics/
> 
> 46 Important Texting While Driving Fatalities Statistics - HRF_



And if Republicans really cared about human lives they would care about more than just American fetus'.


----------



## sealybobo

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Just imagine if Hillary had won in 2016.......
> 
> By now most of South America would be here supported by US taxpayers....taxes would therefor have risen 1000%, and armed task groups would be prowling every place conservatives live with medical records and social media reports in hand, to take guns from everyone who fit "The Profile"
> 
> Trump handled it like an American...no knee-jerking Constitutional Rights attacks.   Just good, common sense suggestions.



Are you kidding?  Do you remember when over Labor Day Weekend Bush was trying to let Mexican truckers into the USA?  Even though they were on holiday vacation many truckers showed up at the border and blocked the Mexican truck drivers from coming in.

This would have been the death of another great American industry.  Truck driving.  Those guys make good money but they work hard.  Unfortunately for them, Mexican truckers cost less.

But don't blame the Mexican truckers.  They're just doing their job.  Blame Bush and the corporations for wanting to save money at American workers expense.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Snookie said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the choice using your own conscience, you have that right too, but you do not have the right, or even the power, to make that choice for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does have a right to amend the constitution to make choices for the minority, if they so chose.
> 
> Is it self defense or paranoia that drives some pro gunners?
Click to expand...

The majority does not have the right to amend it 

There is a set procedure for amending it.

It is not a living document and we have too much gun control already


----------



## KissMy

BasicHumanUnit said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how we have Tyranny with those weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly....it's not funny.
> 
> Secondly, you don't know what "tyranny is.   Go spend a month in Venezuela where the left has completely "Triumphed"
> Then get back to us....if you survive (unlikely)
Click to expand...

Venezuela's fight with US & debt destroyed their currency and their civilization because they don't have any means of production (ie: manufacturing). Without a strong currency they can't buy anything from other countries & without manufacturing they cant make anything for themselves either. (guns played no part)

Reagan / Bush & Repubtards did the same to this country!!! They exported manufacturing jobs. So once Republicans massive debits take down the US dollar, we will be Venezuela. Reagan Republican's God Milton Friedman told them it's better to buy stuff from other countries with printed money than to make it ourselves. Then we don't have to work anymore, their Wallstreet donors get richer & crush union workers. (guns played no part)


----------



## Soupnazi630

KissMy said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how we have Tyranny with those weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly....it's not funny.
> 
> Secondly, you don't know what "tyranny is.   Go spend a month in Venezuela where the left has completely "Triumphed"
> Then get back to us....if you survive (unlikely)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Venezuela's fight with US & debt destroyed their currency and their civilization because they don't have any means of production (ie: manufacturing). Without a strong currency they can't buy anything from other countries & without manufacturing they cant make anything for themselves either. (guns played no part)
> 
> Reagan / Bush & Repubtards did the same to this country!!! They exported manufacturing jobs. So once Republicans massive debits take down the US dollar, we will be Venezuela. Reagan Republican's God Milton Friedman told them it's better to buy stuff from other countries with printed money than to make it ourselves. Then we don't have to work anymore, their Wallstreet donors get richer & crush union workers. (guns played no part)
Click to expand...

Venezuela was destroyed by socialism. Their descent into desperate poverty began immediately after Chavez was elected and it had nothing to do with other nations.

The us has had no similar problems, we thrived under Reagan and continue to do so


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> “President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action. It’s time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR,” the cover reads next to a picture of an assault-style rifle, a weapon that mass shooters frequently use to kill as many people as possible.


Oh look - an anti-gun loon, standing on the bodies of innocents and bathing in their blood, pushing his agenda.

There is no -rational- or -reasoned- argument for banning 'assault weapons'.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> My Ruger 450 American Made Bushmaster gun can hold 4 bullets.  This gun should remain legal.  It's clearly for hunting.
> The 2nd amendment says you can keep and have a gun.  It doesn't say how many rounds should be legal.  I say 5 is appropriate.


Your opinion is devoid of reason.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.


Problem is, there's no "sense" in what you want.


----------



## Marion Morrison

blackhawk said:


> The assault weapons ban legislation put out yesterday got me thinking about when we enacted prohibition to halt the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as we know that ended up creating a bigger problem than the act was attempting to solve. Granted we are not talking about banning all guns like they were with alcohol this ban though does seem to be more far reaching than the last one so I wonder like prohibition could this ban end up causing more problems than it solves?



Absolutely. The goal is total firearm confiscation.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Very few of these nuts would have gone with a laser printer gun.  Can it happen?  Yes.  Will it happen?  Yes.  But for the most part the nut is going to go with what he can easily get his hands on.  In the future it will be a 4 round rifle, a 10 capacity glock, a 5 shotgun shell shotgun


How many rounds does this gun hold?


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?


Fallacy:  begging the question
No one needs to justify the exercise of their rights, to anyone.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

There was no AWB back in 2013 and there will be no AWB now or any time in the future.

The notion is a ridiculous rightwing lie and ridiculous rightwing demagoguery.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> The bill of rights says you can own a gun.  It doesn't say an assault rifle dumb fuck.


The 2nd amendment protects the right to own and use firearms in common use for traditionally legal purposes, and equally protects all such bearable arms.
As such, handguns cannot be constitutionally banned - why do you think the AR15 can?


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> What we are asking for is to simply list these WMD's as Title 2 weapons or NFA firearms



WMDs.

There's no rational basis for this.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> You can answer your own question by answering this question.  Why do we classify some weapons as *Title II weapons*, or *NFA firearms?
> Why?  Because these weapons are too dangerous to let just anyone own.
> *



Unsupportable nonsense.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Lets reduce the number of people murdered by AR's by taking them away from people.


Ah - you DO want to confiscate AR15s.
Good of you to admit it.

Since 1982, 17 AR15s were to murder 253 people, for an average of 6.74 per year.
Your reaction:  SEEE!  BAN THEM!  CONFISCATE THEM!!!  DO IT NOW!!!!
:roll:


----------



## KissMy

*Every Terrorist needs access to these guns!*


----------



## Blues Man

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider "common sense"?
> 
> Owning a fire arm should never be a crime and owning it be infringed by the government.  The Constitution says very clearly the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The only crime should be if the firearm is used in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can keep and bear arms.  Here are your choices
> 
> Shotgun
> Revolver
> Muzzleloader
> Rifle that holds 4 bullets
> 
> Pick one.  See?  Now your rights are in tact and we don't have nuts walking into walmart with assault rifles.
> 
> Here is what I worry about.  I worry that after we ban these guns, nuts will go shooting with revolvers.  They won't kill as many people but they'll cause enough trouble that "liberals" will want to take those guns away too.
> 
> Then I'll agree with you guys.  I'll tell them to fuck off too.  But I see no reason to let the masses own military style weapons that can cause mass destruction.  If Saddam can't have WMD's why can we?  We can't even say we haven't used them.  We use them every day.
> 
> The number of mass shootings across the U.S. so far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved my point Moon Bat.  That is very unreasonable.  In fact bat shit crazy.
> 
> Like I said you can't trust a Moon Bat to be reasonable.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because I enjoy shooting them, building them and collecting them.
> 
> Why the fuck do you care as long as I don't use them in a crime?
> 
> Why don't you mind your own fucking business and leave my Constitutional rights alone?  What is your problem?
> 
> Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in this country so that assholes like you can't take away our Liberties because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I don't want to wait for you to snap.
> 
> I have a friend who says when he's one day diagnosed as terminal, he's going to take out about 20 people who are on his hit list.  It would be nice if he didn't have such a high powered weapon.  I wish him, and you, didn't own them.  But you do so feel free to keep them.  But from now on we no longer sell them commercially.  You can keep yours.
Click to expand...


How do I know you won't snap and start kidnapping little girls?

You do know that little girls are kidnapped by people with legs and arms don't you so if you have legs and arms you are a little girl kidnapper in waiting


----------



## Flash

KissMy said:


> *Every Terrorist needs access to these guns!*




I am not a terrorist and I would love to have one.

However, a terrorists can get one on the black market or supplied by another government.  My filthy ass oppressive government won't allow me to own one.


----------



## Dick Foster

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
Click to expand...

According to the constitution there is none.


----------



## airplanemechanic

I wonder how many on the left know that the Clinton AWB of 1994 didn't ban assault weapons at all?


----------



## M14 Shooter

airplanemechanic said:


> I wonder how many on the left know that the Clinton AWB of 1994 didn't ban assault weapons at all?


It banned the manufacture and sale of weapons it defined as 'assault weapons'.


----------



## sealybobo

Dick Foster said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the constitution there is none.
Click to expand...

But it says a well regulated militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> But it says a well regulated militia.


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
So...?


----------



## KissMy

Flash said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Every Terrorist needs access to these guns!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a terrorist and I would love to have one.
> 
> However, a terrorists can get one on the black market or supplied by another government.  My filthy ass oppressive government won't allow me to own one.
Click to expand...

Why would you "love to have one"? Do you like hording stuff? Wasting a lot of money? Polluting our groundwater with more lead? Damaging hearing? Increasing danger? Want to intimidate or terrorize people with it? What is that WMD going to do for you?


----------



## M14 Shooter

KissMy said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Every Terrorist needs access to these guns!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a terrorist and I would love to have one.
> 
> However, a terrorists can get one on the black market or supplied by another government.  My filthy ass oppressive government won't allow me to own one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you "love to have one"? Do you like hording stuff? Wasting a lot of money? Polluting our groundwater with more lead? Damaging hearing? Increasing danger? Want to intimidate or terrorize people with it? What is that WMD going to do for you?
Click to expand...


WMD


----------



## Flash

KissMy said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Every Terrorist needs access to these guns!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a terrorist and I would love to have one.
> 
> However, a terrorists can get one on the black market or supplied by another government.  My filthy ass oppressive government won't allow me to own one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you "love to have one"? Do you like hording stuff? Wasting a lot of money? Polluting our groundwater with more lead? Damaging hearing? Increasing danger? Want to intimidate or terrorize people with it? What is that WMD going to do for you?
Click to expand...



Shooting is my main hobby.  I have over 50 firearms including 29 AR-15s.  I am a NRA Certified Firearms Instructor and Range Officer.  I mostly teach and administer gun safety.

By trade I am also an Environmental Engineer.  I have a P.E. in it.  I understand lead contamination a lot better than you do.  I shoot on a range where the lead is collected once a year and recycled.

So you can take your stupid sorry ass pussy Moon Bat shit and cram it up your Libtard ass.  If you don't like the right to keep and bear arms then move someplace where it is not an individual Liberty protected by a Bill of Rights..


----------



## Flash

M14 Shooter said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Every Terrorist needs access to these guns!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a terrorist and I would love to have one.
> 
> However, a terrorists can get one on the black market or supplied by another government.  My filthy ass oppressive government won't allow me to own one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you "love to have one"? Do you like hording stuff? Wasting a lot of money? Polluting our groundwater with more lead? Damaging hearing? Increasing danger? Want to intimidate or terrorize people with it? What is that WMD going to do for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WMD
Click to expand...



I have a Class III M-16.  Not quite as cool as that belt fed machine gun in the video but would be considered a WMD by these stupid Moon Bats.

If the Zombie Apocalypse would occur tonight I probably wouldn't grab my M-16.  I would probably use one of my semi autos.  F-A is fun to shoot but really not that effective except for suppression.  Semi auto directed fire is more effective and uses less ammo.

Of course you know that but these stupid Moon Bats don't have a clue.

These pussy Moon Bats get all their info about "assault" weapons from fake news sources like CNN


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the constitution there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...



But we have explained what that term meant in colony times and have explained what Justice Scalia said about that every time this discussion comes up but you being a dumbass uneducated low information Moon Bat always fails to comprehend.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> So...?
Click to expand...


Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia

They are legal but they are very hard to get and very expensive.  And very much regulated.  So all we are going to do is re classify assault weapons that are wmd's as those kinds of weapons.

And there aint a damn thing you can do about it.  Nor will you do anything about.  

Google Shopping, the tech giant’s price-comparison platform, has a policy prohibiting sellers from listing guns and gun accessories. But a review of products on the site shows an array of gun magazines, including a 100-round drum magazine nearly identical to the one used by the mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4. 

In the future you won't be able to buy 100 round drum magazines.  

In Dayton, the gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds, leaving nine people dead and 27 more injured. 






This should not be legal to buy


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the constitution there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But we have explained what that term meant in colony times and have explained what Justice Scalia said about that every time this discussion comes up but you being a dumbass uneducated low information Moon Bat always fails to comprehend.
Click to expand...

You think Scalia is GOD?  His/your spin on the constitution is wack.  Of course you guys rule the courts now so what you say goes, but I'm telling you that not everyone enterprets the constitution the way you gun nuts do.

And I'm sorry but then the constitution in this case in flawed, wrong or incomplete.  They didn't think this far ahead.  They didn't know WMD's would be in the hands of every tom dick and harry.

For example,  many of the people who wrote the constitution only wanted land owners to be able to vote.  They certainly didn't think blacks would be able to vote.  The constitution doesn't say anything about blacks voting either.  Does that mean blacks voting is unconstitutional?

And besides, Republicans do things that are unconstitutional all the time.  

Why Trump’s Census Play Is Blatantly Unconstitutional


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the constitution there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But we have explained what that term meant in colony times and have explained what Justice Scalia said about that every time this discussion comes up but you being a dumbass uneducated low information Moon Bat always fails to comprehend.
Click to expand...


Oh you explained it?  And I was supposed to accept your explanation?  Fuck that.  What does it mean today?  It means, guns can and should be regulated.  

Maybe one day when it's Muslim Americans doing all the mass shootings you'll start waking up.  As long as the nuts are white you're cool with the carnage.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> I want common sense gun control but I own guns.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the constitution there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But we have explained what that term meant in colony times and have explained what Justice Scalia said about that every time this discussion comes up but you being a dumbass uneducated low information Moon Bat always fails to comprehend.
Click to expand...


Trump is absolutely responsible for these mass murders

Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, actually did take executive action on gun control not long after a gunman slaughtered 26 children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in late 2012. And one of Trump’s first actions as president was to undo an Obama regulation that would have blocked some people with mental impairments from buying guns. 

The rule, which became effective just two days before Trump took office, required the Social Security Administration (SSA) to inform the FBI’s criminal background check system about disabled adults receiving benefits through a representative because they a mental impairment limited their ability to manage finances. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs has long followed a similar policy, which accounts for the bulk of mental incompetency referrals to the background check system from federal agencies, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the 4.6 million records prohibiting gun sales due to mental incompetency in the database as of 2016 came from state and local authorities. 

The SSA finalized the rule at the end of 2016, a year in which Obama touted several gun control reforms he’d undertaken without help from Congress. “The gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage, but they can’t hold America hostage,” Obama said on Twitter that year. “We can’t accept this carnage in our communities.”

Because Obama pursued the policy involving the SSA through regulation, however, Congress had an easy time overturning it once Trump assumed the White House. Thanks to a special legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act, Republicans undid more than a dozen regulations that had been finalized late in Obama’s second term. 

Gun control advocates such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence applauded the mental incapacity rule, but its critics included civil liberty and disability advocates. The rule would have restricted firearms sales for roughly 80,000 people, though the restrictions could be appealed. 


“The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget,” the American Civil Liberties Union said in a February 2017 statement. “But no data ― none ― show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.”

Research shows that most mass shooters don’t have severe mental health problems. The man arrested in the killing of 22 people in El Paso on Saturday allegedly wrote that he was doing it to fight an “invasion” of immigrants, echoing the president’s racist rhetoric. 

Trump said Wednesday that background checks and mental health policies, rather than restrictions on types of firearms, are his main focus. He told reporters that he’s hoping Republicans and Democrats in Congress can agree on gun control legislation focused on those topics. Administration officials have said they’re also looking at addressing the matters through executive action, though they haven’t specified what they have in mind. 

Last year, the Trump administration used its executive authority to ban bump stocks that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire as rapidly as illegal machine guns. Bump stocks helped a gunman massacre 58 people in Las Vegas in 2017.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> So...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Nothing here addresses my question, pursuant to your statement "But it says a well regulated militia"
Try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Trump is absolutely responsible for these mass murders


Mindless nonsense.
You simply cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia


This means you have the Google aptitude of a brain-dead baboon.
Well done.


> So all we are going to do is re classify assault weapons that are wmd's as those kinds of weapons.


You cannot present a reasoned, rational argument for the necessity of this -- and so, it won't happen.
And there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.


> In Dayton, the gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds, leaving nine people dead and 27 more injured.


Amateur.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Oh you explained it?  And I was supposed to accept your explanation?  Fuck that.  What does it mean today?  It means, guns can and should be regulated.


1:  Nonsense
2:  Guns are already regulated, and heavily so.
After all, what other durable consumer good requires permission from the government to purchase, and cannot be owned by felons, etc?


----------



## airplanemechanic

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> So...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia
> 
> They are legal but they are very hard to get and very expensive.  And very much regulated.  So all we are going to do is re classify assault weapons that are wmd's as those kinds of weapons.
> 
> And there aint a damn thing you can do about it.  Nor will you do anything about.
> 
> Google Shopping, the tech giant’s price-comparison platform, has a policy prohibiting sellers from listing guns and gun accessories. But a review of products on the site shows an array of gun magazines, including a 100-round drum magazine nearly identical to the one used by the mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4.
> 
> In the future you won't be able to buy 100 round drum magazines.
> 
> In Dayton, the gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds, leaving nine people dead and 27 more injured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be legal to buy
Click to expand...


Why not? I think it looks cool as hell.


----------



## M14 Shooter

airplanemechanic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> So...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia
> 
> They are legal but they are very hard to get and very expensive.  And very much regulated.  So all we are going to do is re classify assault weapons that are wmd's as those kinds of weapons.
> 
> And there aint a damn thing you can do about it.  Nor will you do anything about.
> 
> Google Shopping, the tech giant’s price-comparison platform, has a policy prohibiting sellers from listing guns and gun accessories. But a review of products on the site shows an array of gun magazines, including a 100-round drum magazine nearly identical to the one used by the mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4.
> 
> In the future you won't be able to buy 100 round drum magazines.
> 
> In Dayton, the gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds, leaving nine people dead and 27 more injured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be legal to buy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it looks cool as hell.
Click to expand...

He thinks his irrational fears create a sound argument for the further limitations of our rights.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> So...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia
> 
> They are legal but they are very hard to get and very expensive.  And very much regulated.  So all we are going to do is re classify assault weapons that are wmd's as those kinds of weapons.
> 
> And there aint a damn thing you can do about it.  Nor will you do anything about.
> 
> Google Shopping, the tech giant’s price-comparison platform, has a policy prohibiting sellers from listing guns and gun accessories. But a review of products on the site shows an array of gun magazines, including a 100-round drum magazine nearly identical to the one used by the mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4.
> 
> In the future you won't be able to buy 100 round drum magazines.
> 
> In Dayton, the gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds, leaving nine people dead and 27 more injured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be legal to buy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it looks cool as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He thinks his irrational fears create a sound argument for the further limitations of our rights.
Click to expand...



You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.

The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that. 

Shotguns. 

Muzzle loaders

Crossbows

No wmds


----------



## airplanemechanic

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> So...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia
> 
> They are legal but they are very hard to get and very expensive.  And very much regulated.  So all we are going to do is re classify assault weapons that are wmd's as those kinds of weapons.
> 
> And there aint a damn thing you can do about it.  Nor will you do anything about.
> 
> Google Shopping, the tech giant’s price-comparison platform, has a policy prohibiting sellers from listing guns and gun accessories. But a review of products on the site shows an array of gun magazines, including a 100-round drum magazine nearly identical to the one used by the mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4.
> 
> In the future you won't be able to buy 100 round drum magazines.
> 
> In Dayton, the gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds, leaving nine people dead and 27 more injured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be legal to buy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it looks cool as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He thinks his irrational fears create a sound argument for the further limitations of our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> 
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that.
> 
> Shotguns.
> 
> Muzzle loaders
> 
> Crossbows
> 
> No wmds
Click to expand...


That's about right. Make a rifle capable of blowing a head off at 500 yards legal but make a .22 caliber gun illegal.


----------



## sealybobo

airplanemechanic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> So...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia
> 
> They are legal but they are very hard to get and very expensive.  And very much regulated.  So all we are going to do is re classify assault weapons that are wmd's as those kinds of weapons.
> 
> And there aint a damn thing you can do about it.  Nor will you do anything about.
> 
> Google Shopping, the tech giant’s price-comparison platform, has a policy prohibiting sellers from listing guns and gun accessories. But a review of products on the site shows an array of gun magazines, including a 100-round drum magazine nearly identical to the one used by the mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4.
> 
> In the future you won't be able to buy 100 round drum magazines.
> 
> In Dayton, the gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds, leaving nine people dead and 27 more injured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be legal to buy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it looks cool as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He thinks his irrational fears create a sound argument for the further limitations of our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> 
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that.
> 
> Shotguns.
> 
> Muzzle loaders
> 
> Crossbows
> 
> No wmds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about right. Make a rifle capable of blowing a head off at 500 yards legal but make a .22 caliber gun illegal.
Click to expand...

No you can have a 22 but it will only hold 10 and it will be made so you have to cock it each time.


----------



## airplanemechanic

sealybobo said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday I showed that certain weapons are classified as Title 2 weapons.  Title II weapons - Wikipedia
> 
> They are legal but they are very hard to get and very expensive.  And very much regulated.  So all we are going to do is re classify assault weapons that are wmd's as those kinds of weapons.
> 
> And there aint a damn thing you can do about it.  Nor will you do anything about.
> 
> Google Shopping, the tech giant’s price-comparison platform, has a policy prohibiting sellers from listing guns and gun accessories. But a review of products on the site shows an array of gun magazines, including a 100-round drum magazine nearly identical to the one used by the mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4.
> 
> In the future you won't be able to buy 100 round drum magazines.
> 
> In Dayton, the gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds, leaving nine people dead and 27 more injured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be legal to buy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it looks cool as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He thinks his irrational fears create a sound argument for the further limitations of our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> 
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that.
> 
> Shotguns.
> 
> Muzzle loaders
> 
> Crossbows
> 
> No wmds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about right. Make a rifle capable of blowing a head off at 500 yards legal but make a .22 caliber gun illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you can have a 22 but it will only hold 10 and it will be made so you have to cock it each time.
Click to expand...


So I'd have to cock my Ar-15 each time?


----------



## sealybobo

airplanemechanic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it looks cool as hell.
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks his irrational fears create a sound argument for the further limitations of our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> 
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that.
> 
> Shotguns.
> 
> Muzzle loaders
> 
> Crossbows
> 
> No wmds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about right. Make a rifle capable of blowing a head off at 500 yards legal but make a .22 caliber gun illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you can have a 22 but it will only hold 10 and it will be made so you have to cock it each time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'd have to cock my Ar-15 each time?
Click to expand...

Yes?


----------



## sealybobo

airplanemechanic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it looks cool as hell.
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks his irrational fears create a sound argument for the further limitations of our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> 
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that.
> 
> Shotguns.
> 
> Muzzle loaders
> 
> Crossbows
> 
> No wmds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about right. Make a rifle capable of blowing a head off at 500 yards legal but make a .22 caliber gun illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you can have a 22 but it will only hold 10 and it will be made so you have to cock it each time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'd have to cock my Ar-15 each time?
Click to expand...

Or it will only hold ten bullets


----------



## airplanemechanic

sealybobo said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks his irrational fears create a sound argument for the further limitations of our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> 
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that.
> 
> Shotguns.
> 
> Muzzle loaders
> 
> Crossbows
> 
> No wmds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about right. Make a rifle capable of blowing a head off at 500 yards legal but make a .22 caliber gun illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you can have a 22 but it will only hold 10 and it will be made so you have to cock it each time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'd have to cock my Ar-15 each time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or it will only hold ten bullets
Click to expand...


I'll agree to that if I can put a limiter on your car to 35mph top speed with a 3 gallon tank.

If you get to limit what I enjoy then I get to limit what you enjoy.


----------



## HenryBHough

Banning anything makes it more desirable and increases the price.

Without the riches gotten from prohibition the Kennedy Klan would never have gotten out of the (Boston) Irish Ghetto.


----------



## sealybobo

airplanemechanic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> 
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that.
> 
> Shotguns.
> 
> Muzzle loaders
> 
> Crossbows
> 
> No wmds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about right. Make a rifle capable of blowing a head off at 500 yards legal but make a .22 caliber gun illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you can have a 22 but it will only hold 10 and it will be made so you have to cock it each time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'd have to cock my Ar-15 each time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or it will only hold ten bullets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll agree to that if I can put a limiter on your car to 35mph top speed with a 3 gallon tank.
> 
> If you get to limit what I enjoy then I get to limit what you enjoy.
Click to expand...

I’ll agree. For one, it’ll save gas. People will move closer to where they work.

2, I work 7 minutes from home. Max speed is 40 anyways.


----------



## sealybobo

HenryBHough said:


> Banning anything makes it more desirable and increases the price.
> 
> Without the riches gotten from prohibition the Kennedy Klan would never have gotten out of the (Boston) Irish Ghetto.


So you think any of the idiots who committed these mass shootings will go to that length or will they just go with a shotgun and two ten round handguns and two extra mags. That’s 45 shots.

There is no silver bullet cure all. We just want to lower the number of casualties.

And the background check needs to deny people with mental illnesses or violence in their history


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't trust Libersals to define "proper sense".
> 
> What they claim is proper sense is really oppression.
> 
> Whenever the Liberals have the political power to impose gun control laws like in states like New York and California it is not common sense but pretty damn oppressive.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider some "proper sense" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the constitution there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it says a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But we have explained what that term meant in colony times and have explained what Justice Scalia said about that every time this discussion comes up but you being a dumbass uneducated low information Moon Bat always fails to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think Scalia is GOD?  His/your spin on the constitution is wack.  Of course you guys rule the courts now so what you say goes, but I'm telling you that not everyone enterprets the constitution the way you gun nuts do.
> 
> And I'm sorry but then the constitution in this case in flawed, wrong or incomplete.  They didn't think this far ahead.  They didn't know WMD's would be in the hands of every tom dick and harry.
> 
> For example,  many of the people who wrote the constitution only wanted land owners to be able to vote.  They certainly didn't think blacks would be able to vote.  The constitution doesn't say anything about blacks voting either.  Does that mean blacks voting is unconstitutional?
> 
> And besides, Republicans do things that are unconstitutional all the time.
> 
> Why Trump’s Census Play Is Blatantly Unconstitutional
Click to expand...



No Scalia isn't God but he he did write the majority opinion for the Supreme court when they determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  Go look it up Moon Bat.

Your ignorant response is a great example of why you can't have a discussion with an uneducated low information Moon Bat.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more tan that.
> Shotguns.
> Muzzle loaders
> Crossbows
> No wmds



WMDs!!

You're FUNNY!


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'd have to cock my Ar-15 each time?
> 
> 
> 
> Or it will only hold ten bullets
Click to expand...

So...  in your "mind"...  this AR is acceptable.


----------



## HenryBHough

sealybobo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning anything makes it more desirable and increases the price.
> 
> Without the riches gotten from prohibition the Kennedy Klan would never have gotten out of the (Boston) Irish Ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think any of the idiots who committed these mass shootings will go to that length or will they just go with a shotgun and two ten round handguns and two extra mags. That’s 45 shots.
> 
> There is no silver bullet cure all. We just want to lower the number of casualties.
> 
> And the background check needs to deny people with mental illnesses or violence in their history
Click to expand...


Obviously you don't read for comprehension - so guess again.

I could give a shit about the idiots.  My only point is that when somethjing becomes prohibited, banned or outlawed it becomes more attractive to people with more money than brains so the prices go up and the price of those items soars.

Think it through if you're allowed to do dat.


----------



## sartre play

Republicans said Obama would take your Guns away, he did not. now they say Democrats will take your Guns away they will not. looking for solutions that cut down the numbers of children & other humans killed is not a bad idea. some where between give everyone guns and take all guns away there has to be an answer that will help lesson the murder rate.


----------



## sealybobo

HenryBHough said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning anything makes it more desirable and increases the price.
> 
> Without the riches gotten from prohibition the Kennedy Klan would never have gotten out of the (Boston) Irish Ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think any of the idiots who committed these mass shootings will go to that length or will they just go with a shotgun and two ten round handguns and two extra mags. That’s 45 shots.
> 
> There is no silver bullet cure all. We just want to lower the number of casualties.
> 
> And the background check needs to deny people with mental illnesses or violence in their history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't read for comprehension - so guess again.
> 
> I could give a shit about the idiots.  My only point is that when somethjing becomes prohibited, banned or outlawed it becomes more attractive to people with more money than brains so the prices go up and the price of those items soars.
> 
> Think it through if you're allowed to do dat.
Click to expand...


You're worrying about the price of illegal things soaring?  I'm not.  That's partly how we keep things out of the random nuts hands.  

No gun nuts won't bother to go out on the black market to get 20 round magazines when they are made illegal.  You know it and I know it.  They'll just buy extra magazines and hope they don't stumble when they are reloading.  But they will because they are nervous and that's when cops will take them down.  

How about a 500 round magazine?  Then 1 person can go into a sporting stadium and really do some damage.  Sound good to you?  Fucking idiots!


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> No gun nuts won't bother to go out on the black market to get 20 round magazines when they are made illegal.


Possession and transfer of existing magazines will never be illegal.   
You know it and I know it.


----------



## 2aguy

sartre play said:


> Republicans said Obama would take your Guns away, he did not. now they say Democrats will take your Guns away they will not. looking for solutions that cut down the numbers of children & other humans killed is not a bad idea. some where between give everyone guns and take all guns away there has to be an answer that will help lesson the murder rate.




Obama packed the courts with anti-gun judges...knowing that democrats at the local and state level would push gun control there, and get it okayed by his judges at the federal level.   This tactic kept him from losing congress as he tried to pass and protect obama care....


----------



## 2aguy

airplanemechanic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll see. In the near future you’ll be able to own a hunting rifle or a ten mag handgun.
> 
> The hunting rifles will hold 4 like my American made roger 450. You don’t need more than that.
> 
> Shotguns.
> 
> Muzzle loaders
> 
> Crossbows
> 
> No wmds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about right. Make a rifle capable of blowing a head off at 500 yards legal but make a .22 caliber gun illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you can have a 22 but it will only hold 10 and it will be made so you have to cock it each time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'd have to cock my Ar-15 each time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or it will only hold ten bullets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll agree to that if I can put a limiter on your car to 35mph top speed with a 3 gallon tank.
> 
> If you get to limit what I enjoy then I get to limit what you enjoy.
Click to expand...



You do realize that cars are on their agenda.......they want everyone on public transportation, not in their private cars.  It isn't at the top of their list, by they want the cars too...just look at the response to your post...


----------



## 2aguy

sealybobo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning anything makes it more desirable and increases the price.
> 
> Without the riches gotten from prohibition the Kennedy Klan would never have gotten out of the (Boston) Irish Ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think any of the idiots who committed these mass shootings will go to that length or will they just go with a shotgun and two ten round handguns and two extra mags. That’s 45 shots.
> 
> There is no silver bullet cure all. We just want to lower the number of casualties.
> 
> And the background check needs to deny people with mental illnesses or violence in their history
Click to expand...



Background checks, current background checks, already do that.....

And you aren't interested in saving lives, you just hate guns and the people who own them.


----------



## Flash

If we let the filthy Liberals take away our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms then we are pretty much fucked as a country.  I mean really fucked.  We would have lost our soul.

If Trump and the other Republicans can't protect our basic God endowed Constitutional rights then they are just as worthless as the Democrats.


----------



## HenryBHough

sealybobo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning anything makes it more desirable and increases the price.
> 
> Without the riches gotten from prohibition the Kennedy Klan would never have gotten out of the (Boston) Irish Ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think any of the idiots who committed these mass shootings will go to that length or will they just go with a shotgun and two ten round handguns and two extra mags. That’s 45 shots.
> 
> There is no silver bullet cure all. We just want to lower the number of casualties.
> 
> And the background check needs to deny people with mental illnesses or violence in their history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't read for comprehension - so guess again.
> 
> I could give a shit about the idiots.  My only point is that when somethjing becomes prohibited, banned or outlawed it becomes more attractive to people with more money than brains so the prices go up and the price of those items soars.
> 
> Think it through if you're allowed to do dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're worrying about the price of illegal things soaring?  I'm not.  That's partly how we keep things out of the random nuts hands.
> 
> No gun nuts won't bother to go out on the black market to get 20 round magazines when they are made illegal.  You know it and I know it.  They'll just buy extra magazines and hope they don't stumble when they are reloading.  But they will because they are nervous and that's when cops will take them down.
> 
> How about a 500 round magazine?  Then 1 person can go into a sporting stadium and really do some damage.  Sound good to you?  Fucking idiots!
Click to expand...


Christ Upon a Crutch!

Your reading comprehension is far worse than I even imagined.

I am not at all worried about the price of banned things going up.

I applaud it!  I wanna be the next Kennedy grandee.....rich beyond all belief from peddling "forbidden fruit" to you dumb turds.


----------



## Polishprince

The Assault Weapon ban is a concern to me, because this is going to represent an expense to me.   I don't know if I will need an assault weapon in the future,  but there certainly is that possibility.   So since it is better safe than sorry, this puts me in the immediate market for one.  

What would you guys recommend for a general purpose Assault Weapon?   

The price of these weapons will definitely increase, if they are banned.


----------



## JoeMoma

Polishprince said:


> The Assault Weapon ban is a concern to me, because this is going to represent an expense to me.   I don't know if I will need an assault weapon in the future,  but there certainly is that possibility.   So since it is better safe than sorry, this puts me in the immediate market for one.
> 
> What would you guys recommend for a general purpose Assault Weapon?
> 
> The price of these weapons will definitely increase, if they are banned.


This:


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

BasicHumanUnit said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is if you codify storage requirements like that, gun control advocates will make the laws so convoluted, expensive, and time consuming that it would turn into a de-facto ban on said weapons requiring the storage conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say to make it any kind of *requirement*.   Where did you get that?
> 
> Just something responsible owners of Tyranny Suppression weapons could do on their own to potentially help the situation.
> 
> If you have AR15's or AK47's etc.....do you really think leaving them unsecured at home while you are away is a good idea?
Click to expand...


Good luck trying to locate my weapons.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Polishprince said:


> What would you guys recommend for a general purpose Assault Weapon?
> The price of these weapons will definitely increase, if they are banned.


How much do you want to spend?  You can get one for $450-500 or you can get one for $5000
Any AR from any name brand manufacturer will likely suit your needs.


----------

