# Guns



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.

Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.

Every country doesn't have guns (according to Americans), just the US, so problem not resolved, let's talk guns. Inevitable civil war will happen at any moment (just like the world is going to end), so let's talk guns 

..........

My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns? I have never ever been to a country, nor on another country's forum where guns are so obsessive.

What is up with you guys? What's the question you're trying to resolve, can we finally discover the answer that puts the debate to bed?

Is that possible??


----------



## miketx (Feb 26, 2022)

Why are you so obsessed with lying? Is that the first thing learned at shit stain school?


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 26, 2022)

Gun owners shoot guns. The media and Dems shoot their mouths off about guns. Big difference.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


Well, when people arent allowed to own guns....


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


youre the one talking about guns,, so whats up with that??


----------



## task0778 (Feb 26, 2022)

The democrats made gun control a political issue, pretty much like everything else.  That's why we talk about guns.


----------



## 1srelluc (Feb 26, 2022)

LOL....I figured it would get the left all riled up when they saw a example of the armed citizenry in Ukraine.

It was only recently (last month or so) that anything but Fudd (hunting guns) could be owned in the Ukraine.

Now they are handing out full-auto AKs like candy to all comers....Many getting them have to go to You Tube to find out how they work but many more have received at least rudimentary training on their operation..

2A has shit-all to do with hunting and everything to do with defending hearth and home against aggressors be it some criminal, a foreign invader, or (more importantly) the .gov when it gets out of control.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns? I have never ever been to a country, nor on another country's forum where guns are so obsessive.


Because we have over 30,000 gun deaths and 8500 gun murders each year
We have had seven Presidents shot by guns 
More than any other nation, we have had continual gum massacres of innocent people.

That is why we are obsessed with guns


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Because we have over 30,000 gun deaths and 8500 gun murders each year
> We have had seven Presidents shot by guns
> More than any other nation, we have had continual gum massacres of innocent people.
> 
> That is why we are obsessed with guns


no one said living free would be easy,,


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 26, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> no one said living free would be easy,,


Tell it to the Sandy Hook parents who had their six year olds slaughtered

Small price to pay for their second amendment rights


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Because we have over 30,000 gun deaths and 8500 gun murders each year
> We have had seven Presidents shot by guns
> More than any other nation, we have had continual gum massacres of innocent people.
> 
> That is why we are obsessed with guns


If the government or some other agency would kindly publish an annual report detailing each gun death event (as I have suggested for many years) America could sleep better knowing that the gun violence problem has been greatly exaggerated.

We won the Revolutionary War with guns. Franklin tacitly suggested that we should defend it with guns as well. Good advice. As a Christian I don't wish to take a life. However, the "goodman who didn't suffer his house to be broken up' likely had permission to use deadly force if necessary.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Tell it to the Sandy Hook parents who had their six year olds slaughtered
> 
> Small price to pay for their second amendment rights


tell that to the millions that were saved from guns,,


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Tell it to the Sandy Hook parents who had their six year olds slaughtered
> 
> Small price to pay for their second amendment rights


It's a large price to pay for ignoring a troubled kid.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...



What Issue not resolved?

I wasn't aware there was an issue about guns. I certainly have no issue with them do you?

If you do have an issue with guns, then don't buy any.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...




We aren't obsessed with guns, you moron....you see the object, we see what that object defends...freedom....freedom from rape, robbery and murder, freedom from government murder, freedom from invasion by foreign countries...

That these things are not obvious to you, with growing crime all over Europe, with Russia threatening military invasion and attacks not only against Ukraine and now Finland and Sweden and the Baltic states.......countries that follow your anti-gun extremism.........show you are an idiot who is what I call "Reality Dyslexic..."   Truth are lies, facts are fiction, reality is fake.....that is how you see the world....as your policies and beliefs cause chaos, death and destruction...


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 26, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> If the government or some other agency would kindly publish an annual report detailing each gun death event (as I have suggested for many years) America could sleep better knowing that the gun violence problem has been greatly exaggerated.
> 
> We won the Revolutionary War with guns. Franklin tacitly suggested that we should defend it with guns as well. Good advice. As a Christian I don't wish to take a life. However, the "goodman who didn't suffer his house to be broken up' likely had permission to use deadly force if necessary.


30,000 deaths?
Are you fucking nuts?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> 30,000 deaths?
> Are you fucking nuts?


millions of lives saved,, are you nuts??


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 26, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> LOL....I figured it would get the left all riled up when they saw a example of the armed citizenry in Ukraine.
> 
> It was only recently (last month or so) that anything but Fudd (hunting guns) could be owned in the Ukraine.
> 
> ...




Kiev...or however you want to spell it.......has 3 million citizens.....the Russian army is about 1 million strong.....don't know how many are active fighters and how many are support.....

So if they had had armed citizens with a real gun culture, you could have seen about 1-2 million armed citizens in just the capitol city to fight off the invasion...

The Russians could send missiles and gun ships to take our military targets...but when their soldiers are facing 1 million armed citizens intent on killing Russians.....an invasion becomes unsustainable...

Handing out guns as the Russians march on Kiev is too little too late, but is a lot better than nothing........

If the Europeans are smart....and they are not, since they didn't learn anything from World War 2 and government mass murder......they would start handing out rifles today...with training...........so that Russia would face not 1 million armed citizens...but entire countries ready to fight to the knife and armed with rifles to put Russians in body bags......



Gun control leads to criminal and government rape and murder.........will they learn this lesson?  I fucking doubt it....


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 26, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> It's a large price to pay for ignoring a troubled kid.


Lot of troubled kids out there

Thankfully nothing to stop them from obtaining the weapon of their choice


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Because we have over 30,000 gun deaths and 8500 gun murders each year
> We have had seven Presidents shot by guns
> More than any other nation, we have had continual gum massacres of innocent people.
> 
> That is why we are obsessed with guns




No....we had 24,292 suicides.....in 2020, and 10,258 gun murders in 2019.......

We also have about 1.1 million defensive gun uses...where criminals are stopped from raping, robbing, beating, stabbing and murdering innocent people.......

As gun controlled cities under democrat party control see massive spikes in violent crime....as the democrats attack police then release violent repeat gun offenders.....you post that stupid post.....

As Russia invades and murders Ukrainians, and now the Ukrainians are handing out rifles to their citizens.....you post that stupid post....

Your policies invite chaos, death and murder.......

Guns save lives....and stop invasions.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 26, 2022)

task0778 said:


> The democrats made gun control a political issue, pretty much like everything else.  That's why we talk about guns.





rightwinger said:


> 30,000 deaths?
> Are you fucking nuts?


You won't have to read each and every case fully to get the picture. Reading the abstract is usually sufficient.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Because we have over 30,000 gun deaths and 8500 gun murders each year
> We have had seven Presidents shot by guns
> More than any other nation, we have had continual gum massacres of innocent people.
> 
> That is why we are obsessed with guns




A society without guns...like Europe?

15 million men, women and children murdered in 6 years............

I'll take American gun culture over European gun murder any day of the year.........


----------



## Flash (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns? I have never ever been to a country, nor on another country's forum where guns are so obsessive.


Why do you care?  Are you a Karen?

If you don't like, want or need a firearm then don't buy one.   Problem solved.

Leave me the fuck alone.  It is none of your business.


----------



## Darkwind (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


Stop trying to do away with guns.

Problem solved and the talking stops.

Eazypeeze.


----------



## 1srelluc (Feb 26, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Kiev...or however you want to spell it.......has 3 million citizens.....the Russian army is about 1 million strong.....don't know how many are active fighters and how many are support.....
> 
> So if they had had armed citizens with a real gun culture, you could have seen about 1-2 million armed citizens in just the capitol city to fight off the invasion...
> 
> ...


I'd agree if it was another country. Russians and Ukrainians are so intermingled it's hard to tell friend from foe, in fact divided loyalties is in part what kept them out of NATO.

I've seen more than a few interviews with both "nationalities" that speak of close family that live in both Russia and Ukraine so not only would they be fighting the Russians but each other.....Sorta like they did _before_ Putin invaded. I'd sooner they deal with this on their own without any outside "help".

Take our own civil war, the Brits made bank supplying both sides and nothing has changed since.....As always, follow the money and see who is getting rich off the suffering of others..


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Lot of troubled kids out there
> 
> Thankfully nothing to stop them from obtaining the weapon of their choice


Not all send up red flags like most do who commit such crimes. We are a reactive people, not proactive. It's one of the costs of being a free people.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 26, 2022)

Guns are an integral part of American culture.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 26, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Guns are an integral part of American culture.




Guns are an integral part of freedom.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Tell it to the Sandy Hook parents who had their six year olds slaughtered


Yeah... That sucks...

They should put that guy in jail... right next to the guy who ran over and killed those parade attendees in Wisconsin.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


I need my guns ... to fight Putin.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Well, when people arent allowed to own guns....
> 
> View attachment 607336


I don't want to piss on your parade, but Hitler had more of an impact on countries in Europe than the late Americans. But, Europeans are not obsessed with guns against a Hitler. So that's one issue now resolved. So there's no need for you to ever mention that ever again.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Feb 26, 2022)

We talk about guns because there is a movement to take away people s guns. Does that explain it for you.?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> youre the one talking about guns,, so whats up with that??


You guys do it every 5 minutes, every day, every week, every month, every year, every decade, every century. So that issue is now resolved, no need for you to ever mention that again.

I'm here to cleanse Americans of their gun troubles.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

task0778 said:


> The democrats made gun control a political issue, pretty much like everything else.  That's why we talk about guns.


Thank you for an American giving some input, rather than injecting childish shite. Hat off to you.


----------



## mak2 (Feb 26, 2022)

I was well trained with firearms and use of deadly force.  I have a firearm within reach pretty much all the time.  It is not to overthrow the government or to go all vigilante.  Hopefully I will never need it, but if I do need that particular tool someday, I will have it.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We aren't obsessed with guns, you moron....you see the object, we see what that object defends...freedom....freedom from rape, robbery and murder, freedom from government murder, freedom from invasion by foreign countries...
> 
> That these things are not obvious to you, with growing crime all over Europe, with Russia threatening military invasion and attacks not only against Ukraine and now Finland and Sweden and the Baltic states.......countries that follow your anti-gun extremism.........show you are an idiot who is what I call "Reality Dyslexic..."   Truth are lies, facts are fiction, reality is fake.....that is how you see the world....as your policies and beliefs cause chaos, death and destruction...


You are obsessed. YOU are a prime example. To resolve any confusion, look at your posting history.

So that's resolved.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

52ndStreet said:


> We talk about guns because there is a movement to take away people s guns. Does that explain it for you.?


Are Democrats wanting to remove all guns, or just restrict the types that many nations adopt.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Tell it to the Sandy Hook parents who had their six year olds slaughtered
> 
> Small price to pay for their second amendment rights


Excellent, Sandy Hook did happen and now covered, no need for that to be mentioned again.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Come on progressive hunter , something about guns is troubling you. Maybe we can finally cover it so you don't have to mention it again. So what's your troubling gun point?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Come on progressive hunter , something about guns is troubling you. Maybe we can finally cover it so you don't have to mention it again. So what's your troubling gun point?


I dont have a trouble with guns,,well until some piece of shit like you wants to take them, then it becomes your trouble,,


----------



## task0778 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Are Democrats wanting to remove all guns, or just restrict the types that many nations adopt.



For now, some democrats just want restrictions on guns that appear to be military type assault weapons.  For some of them, this is merely the 1st step towards removing all guns, one way or another.  

Note:  don't get caught up in what other nations do.  We ain't them.


----------



## miketx (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You are obsessed. YOU are a prime example. To resolve any confusion, look at your posting history.
> 
> So that's resolved.


The only thing resolved is that you are a lying commie.


----------



## miketx (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Tell it to the Sandy Hook parents who had their six year olds slaughtered
> 
> Small price to pay for their second amendment rights


Maybe you commies should have teachers be armed.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...



  It's because Early Americans had guns that we were able to kick you British filth out of our country almost two and a half centuries ago, and to establish a nation based on the recognition of a range of essential human rights that to this day, you British still refuse to recognize or uphold.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Guns are an integral part of American culture.



  American culture wouldn't even exist if we didn't have guns to fight for and win our independence from the British filth that wanted to rule over us.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I don't want to piss on your parade, but Hitler had more of an impact on countries in Europe than the late Americans. But, Europeans are not obsessed with guns against a Hitler. So that's one issue now resolved. So there's no need for you to ever mention that ever again.



  Those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it.

  We're already seeing, in various parts of the world, several nations that have started along the same path that led to the rise of Hitler.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm here to cleanse Americans of their gun troubles.



  As a piece of British filth, you have no standing, and no say, whatsoever, as to how we Americas run our country.  We fought two wars to establish this, once and for all.

  We don't need you to _“cleanse”_ anything for us.  We cleansed ourselves of our greatest ills in 1776.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> As a piece of British filth, you have no standing, and no say, whatsoever, as to how we Americas run our country.  We fought two wars to establish this, once and for all.
> 
> We don't need you to _“cleanse”_ anything for us.  We cleansed ourselves of our greatest ills in 1776.


Really?  Then why have you been spending so much energy telling CANADA how to run their country?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 26, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A society without guns...like Europe?
> 
> 15 million men, women and children murdered in 6 years............
> 
> I'll take American gun culture over European gun murder any day of the year.........


You are comparing statistics of one country with an entire continent of multiple countries.  Pretty dishonest.


----------



## task0778 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What is up with you guys? What's the question you're trying to resolve, can we finally discover the answer that puts the debate to bed?



NO.  Why?  Because it's a political issue that neither side will give up on.




Captain Caveman said:


> Is that possible??



NO.  See above answer.




Captain Caveman said:


> I'm here to cleanse Americans of their gun troubles.



Mind your own fucking business.  You're not here to cleanse anybody, you're here to troll those who support the 2nd Amendment.  Tell you what though, why don't you tell us how you would 'cleanse' us of our gun troubles?


----------



## Ridgerunner (Feb 26, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Really? Then why have you been spending so much energy telling CANADA how to run their country?


Show some links where folks have been telling the Canadian Patriots what and how to do...
Encouragement... Hell yeah, there has been encouragement...
Financial support... Sure monies have flowed helping the Truckers...

Your accusation is bullshit...


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> I dont have a trouble with guns,,well until some piece of shit like you wants to take them, then it becomes your trouble,,


I don't want to take them. No idea where you got that from. So there you go, your fear has now gone. No need to repeat that, it has been covered.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Coyote said:


> You are comparing statistics of one country with an entire continent of multiple countries.  Pretty dishonest.



  As if you are anyone to cast aspersions at anyone else's honesty.

  You're one of the most unabashedly dishonest vermin to infest this forum.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

miketx said:


> The only thing resolved is that you are a lying commie.


Oh dear, a retard out of the closet.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I don't want to take them. No idea where you got that from. So there you go, your fear has now gone. No need to repeat that, it has been covered.


but youre not the only mother fucker in the world,,


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It's because Early Americans had guns that we were able to kick you British filth out of our country almost two and a half centuries ago, and to establish a nation based on the recognition of a range of essential human rights that to this day, you British still refuse to recognize or uphold.


Yes, that's been repeated and covered one billion times. You've now said it one billion and one time. So that's hopefully covered. If you feel it hasn't, could you explain why? Is it because your head is empty?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> We're already seeing, in various parts of the world, several nations that have started along the same path that led to the rise of Hitler.


Hitler has been studied. So don't worry, that has been covered.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Really?  Then why have you been spending so much energy telling CANADA how to run their country?



  Canaduh is right across the border from us, and in a position where what happens there threatens to affect what happens in the U.S.

  We just saw a massive demonstration of the sort of tyranny take place, that one usually expects of a place like 조선민주주의인민공화국, 中华人民共和国, or the old Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, take place there in Canaduh, with too many of the criminal filth who infest our own government being clearly tempted and inspired in the direction of trying to pull the same bullshit here.

  Americans have every reason to be concerned about how what we saw in Canaduh might affect what happens to us in our own country.


  Then there is also, that the piece of shit that started this thread trying to tell us Americans how to run out country, is an artifact of the very same degenerate society against which we rebelled to found this country.  We fought two wars specifically to establish that British filth have no say about how we Americans run our country.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

task0778 said:


> NO.  Why?  Because it's a political issue that neither side will give up on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about guns like some mental retard. Can you not shove them up your backside, stop repeating yourself, we've heard that crap a billion times.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 26, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> LOL....I figured it would get the left all riled up when they saw a example of the armed citizenry in Ukraine.
> 
> It was only recently (last month or so) that anything but Fudd (hunting guns) could be owned in the Ukraine.
> 
> ...



It's already "Out of control".
I think what conservatives MEAN...but are too yellow bellied to say.....is they won't use their guns until the government actually starts killing people.

I think the FF's meant well.....but they had no clue the way a Feral government could tie up future "Patriots" with finances and assets.
Everyone is FAR too afraid of losing it all or going to jail.  Technology is too far advanced to permit resistance at this point.

It is just an opinion...but the 2nd Amendment is worthless today because there are no (or too few) Patriots brave enough and or willing to ever use them as intended.   Instead, you are holding on to your guns under the sole supposition that "They will eventually come to my door" and that is when you intend to use them.  And YES, they will come to your door.....but you will NOT use them if you even still have them.

I say you will not.   By that time they will have maneuvered as to make your resistance futile and impossible.  The force at your door will be far too overwhelming.  2 or 3 armored vehicles with 50 cal machines guns pointed at you and your family.  You'll surrender faster than Napoleon at Waterloo.

Say what you like...but you'd be wrong and I'm correct like it or not.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm here to cleanse Americans of their gun troubles.
> ...



  If it came down to that, I bet the U.S. has more than enough military might to completely _“cleanse”_ the entire U.K.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 26, 2022)

Coyote said:


> You are comparing statistics of one country with an entire continent of multiple countries.  Pretty dishonest.



No… the countries of Europe disarmed their citizens then handed them over to the German socialists for murder


----------



## task0778 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> And you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about guns like some mental retard. Can you not shove them up your backside, stop repeating yourself, we've heard that crap a billion times.



And you're not repeating yourself?

Go fuck yourself.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> And you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about guns like some mental retard. Can you not shove them up your backside, stop repeating yourself, we've heard that crap a billion times.



Cowardly trash like you are why it will be entertaining when Russia or China take your nation and at the last second, the falling British government pulls a Ukraine and tries to shove AR15's into the hands of every man woman and child.

Fucktards like you in your comfortable protective bubbles are clueless as to how the world actually operates and has done so for thousands of years.

Now, I'm ALL FOR taking hunting rifles away and or banning hunting altogether (unless the game is human hunter vs human hunter, as that might be more of a "sport").


----------



## miketx (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Oh dear, a retard out of the closet.


Classic commie lying leftist double speak.


Captain Caveman said:


> You guys do it every 5 minutes, every day, every week, every month, every year, every decade, every century. So that issue is now resolved, no need for you to ever mention that again.
> 
> I'm here to cleanse Americans of their gun troubles.


Come get them commie!


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> If it came down to that, I bet the U.S. has more than enough military might to completely _“cleanse”_ the entire U.K.


If you had an argument with your partner, would you bring the exact same argument up daily, every week, every year, every decade? Or do you cover and resolve the problem there and then?

So why do you struggle with a gun? What issue can we resolve for you?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 26, 2022)

Coyote said:


> You are comparing statistics of one country with an entire continent of multiple countries.  Pretty dishonest.



Do you call yourself "Coyote" because you are in support of the trafficking of humans across the border?
You do know that's slang for your username...yeah, I'm sure you do.


----------



## miketx (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What issue can we resolve for you?


The fact that you live.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Cowardly trash like you are why it will be entertaining when Russia or China take your nation and at the last second, the falling British government pulls a Ukraine and tries to shove AR15's into the hands of every man woman and child.
> 
> Fucktards like you in your comfortable protective bubbles are clueless as to how the world actually operates and has done so for thousands of years.
> 
> Now, I'm ALL FOR taking hunting rifles away and or banning hunting altogether (unless the game is human hunter vs human hunter, as that might be more of a "sport").


China and Russia won't take the UK, so you can stand down.

I'm not a one for taking hunting rifles away, seasons and quotas can be sensibly agreed. Those who flaunt those regs should be severely punished.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Are Democrats wanting to remove all guns, or just restrict the types that many nations adopt.


They know they have to start somewhere to get to where they want to go.
So, they start with the guns that look scary to them.  But, make no mistake,
they do want them all removed.  Except the ones that the criminals have.
Also, probably if the illegals have them, they would probably be okay with theirs too.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

miketx said:


> The fact that you live.


Come on, let's do some therapy for you. There are various gun 'one liners' you repeat on a daily basis. How can these be resolved because you obviously never received an adequate response to these, hence why you repeat them.

We know America (along with every nation) has a constitution. You have the 2nd amendment. We know that. So there's now need to go over that again. So how can you be helped?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> They know they have to start somewhere to get to where they want to go.
> So, they start with the guns that look scary to them.  But, make no mistake,
> they do want them all removed.  Except the ones that the criminals have.
> Also, probably if the illegals have them, they would probably be okay with theirs too.


How many criminals have guns.

I know criminals come up a billion times, so just trying to resolve the minority side of guns


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Cowardly trash like you are why it will be entertaining when Russia or China take your nation and at the last second, the falling British government pulls a Ukraine and tries to shove AR15's into the hands of every man woman and child.



  The U.K. probably doesn't have enough weapons, and it's a safe bet that the vast majority of British cowards wouldn't be able to figure out how to use them anyway.

  It is sometimes tempting to think that it was a mistake for the U.S. to get involved in the European side of World War II.  Japan attacked us, and of course we needed to hit back at them, but maybe we should have just let the Germans and the Soviets have Europe to split among themselves.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> How many criminals have guns.
> 
> I know criminals come up a billion times, so just trying to resolve the minority side of guns


Kinda hard to tell how many the criminals have, they aren't registered.  But why don't you
go to LA and hit up some gangs there.  I bet they won't mind.   
My guess would be a shitload though.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you had an argument with your partner, would you bring the exact same argument up daily, every week, every year, every decade? Or do you cover and resolve the problem there and then?
> 
> So why do you struggle with a gun? What issue can we resolve for you?



  You're not a partner.

  You're an arrogant British piece of shit who, in your hubris, feels a need to try to preach to us Americans how we should run our country, even after we fought two wars specifically so that we wouldn't have to run our country the way you British filth run your own degenerate shithole.

  Maybe it's time for a third match; this time, for the U.S. to invade and colonize the U.K., and to oppress you filth the way you once tried to oppress us.


----------



## ... (Feb 26, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Gun owners shoot guns. The media and Dems shoot their mouths off about guns. Big difference.


You mean the owners of the guns that shot at Sandy Hook and other schools and public places right?


----------



## hadit (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Lot of troubled kids out there
> 
> Thankfully nothing to stop them from obtaining the weapon of their choice


Are you saying all the laws that democrats insisted were going to stop gun violence didn't do anything? Background checks, limiting the size of the clips, limiting the number of guns purchased? All the 20,000+ gun laws on the books don't do anything?

If that's the case, why do we still have so many of them?


----------



## ... (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're not a partner.
> 
> You're an arrogant British piece of shit who, in your hubris, feels a need to try to preach to us Americans how we should run our country, even after we fought two wars specifically so that we wouldn't have to run our country the way you British filth run your own degenerate shithole.
> 
> Maybe it's time for a third match; this time, for the U.S. to invade and colonize the U.K., and to oppress you filth the way you once tried to oppress us.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> Kinda hard to tell how many the criminals have, they aren't registered.  But why don't you
> go to LA and hit up some gangs there.  I bet they won't mind.
> My guess would be a shitload though.


If you take a country's crime stats, they're low. Then out of those crimes, which crimes are gun related, as in, what percentage involved a gun. A banana in a pocket doesn't count. The figures are miniscule to everyone's normal days life. Yet, they're mentioned to be the majority of problems, we are overwhelmed with criminals with guns and bazookas. 

But with gun arguments, it's both convenient and lazy to claim there's an epidemic of gun tooting criminals. Anyone claiming that is banking on their adversely not having more than two brain cells, to be honest. It's like the abortion debate and all of a sudden, there's a billion rapists, yet the stats are less than 1%.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You mean the owners of the guns that shot at Sandy Hook and other schools and public places right?


How many lives have been saved by having a gun, Scooter?
Look at the other side of the coin from time to time, it would keep you humble.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you take a country's crime stats, they're low. Then out of those crimes, which crimes are gun related, as in, what percentage involved a gun. A banana in a pocket doesn't count. The figures are miniscule to everyone's normal days life. Yet, they're mentioned to be the majority of problems, we are overwhelmed with criminals with guns and bazookas.
> 
> But with gun arguments, it's both convenient and lazy to claim there's an epidemic of gun tooting criminals. Anyone claiming that is banking on their adversely not having more than two brain cells, to be honest. It's like the abortion debate and all of a sudden, there's a billion rapists, yet the stats are less than 1%.


Care to show some of your links to your 'facts'?
Or should we just follow along with your opinion?
And you don't even bring up the lives saved by those who had a gun.  Why?


----------



## miketx (Feb 26, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You mean the owners of the guns that shot at Sandy Hook and other schools and public places right?


Too bad they all died because commie filth like you kept school staff from being armed.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're not a partner.
> 
> You're an arrogant British piece of shit who, in your hubris, feels a need to try to preach to us Americans how we should run our country, even after we fought two wars specifically so that we wouldn't have to run our country the way you British filth run your own degenerate shithole.
> 
> Maybe it's time for a third match; this time, for the U.S. to invade and colonize the U.K., and to oppress you filth the way you once tried to oppress us.


Yet you guys have a thread telling Ukrainians how they should operate their guns. So why the double standard? Please explain you Yank piece of shit? (Choosing your words)


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> Care to show some of your links to your 'facts'?
> Or should we just follow along with your opinion?
> And you don't even bring up the lives saved by those who had a gun.  Why?


I will dig them out for you, keeping in mind it's nearly bed time in the UK, so it'll probably be tomorrow.

99.9% of my opinions are based on research and studies.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I will dig them out for you, keeping in mind it's nearly bed time in the UK, so it'll probably be tomorrow.
> 
> 99.9% of my opinions are based on research and studies.


Oh, no doubt about the 99.9%   

Also, dig up a source for yourself on lives saved by owning a gun while your at it.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're not a partner.
> 
> You're an arrogant British piece of shit who, in your hubris, feels a need to try to preach to us Americans how we should run our country, even after we fought two wars specifically so that we wouldn't have to run our country the way you British filth run your own degenerate shithole.
> 
> Maybe it's time for a third match; this time, for the U.S. to invade and colonize the U.K., and to oppress you filth the way you once tried to oppress us.


Come on, if you had an argument with your partner, would you resolve it, or constantly bring it up daily, weekly, monthly etc.. and be totally obsessed by it?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> Oh, no doubt about the 99.9%
> 
> Also, dig up a source for yourself on lives saved by owning a gun while your at it.


I don't think 'saved by gun' will come up in the UK. Do you think it will?


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I don't think 'saved by gun' will come up in the UK. Do you think it will?


Probably not, it goes against the narrative of the liberals.
But, that in itself should speak loudly to you.  Strange


----------



## task0778 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you take a country's crime stats, they're low. Then out of those crimes, which crimes are gun related, as in, what percentage involved a gun. A banana in a pocket doesn't count. The figures are miniscule to everyone's normal days life. Yet, they're mentioned to be the majority of problems, we are overwhelmed with criminals with guns and bazookas.
> 
> But with gun arguments, it's both convenient and lazy to claim there's an epidemic of gun tooting criminals. Anyone claiming that is banking on their adversely not having more than two brain cells, to be honest. It's like the abortion debate and all of a sudden, there's a billion rapists, yet the stats are less than 1%.



So, if it isn't really a big problem then why the big necessity to get rid of them?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Come on, if you had an argument with your partner, would you resolve it, or constantly bring it up daily, weekly, monthly etc.. and be totally obsessed by it?



  You're not a partner.

  You're obviously bitter, because almost two and a half centuries ago, Americans with guns stopped you British shit from ruling over and oppressing us; and it is you that is obsessively bringing it up, being unable to accept the outcome of two wars in which we told you British filth to fuck off.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> China and Russia won't take the UK, so you can stand down.


That's exactly what Neville Chamberlin said about Hitler, gin breath...  Sober up...


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> Probably not, it goes against the narrative of the liberals.
> But, that in itself should speak loudly to you.  Strange


What speaks loudly, Brits are vastly more sensible with guns. In the UK, by all means use a knife, gun, baseball bat etc.. to protect and defend yourself, but bear in mind, you will be arrested as a matter of procedure to see if it was reasonable. If it was, no charges filed. Such cases crop up in the news.

If you are being attacked and you shoot, jobs a good un. If the burglar is fleeing and you shoot, expect jail time. Very reasonable, very sensible don't you think?

Yet, we Brits don't go on about this a billion times per day, you guys do. Why?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

task0778 said:


> So, if it isn't really a big problem then why the big necessity to get rid of them?


Get rid of what?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're not a partner.
> 
> You're obviously bitter, because almost two and a half centuries ago, Americans with guns stopped you British shit from ruling over and oppressing us; and it is you that is obsessively bringing it up, being unable to accept the outcome of two wars in which we told you British filth to fuck off.


See, going back over old ground. Already covered history with Americans and the French getting independence from the Brits. Fuck me, this has been covered one billion times.

Why are you repeating it? Why do you feel this has not been covered?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns? I have never ever been to a country, nor on another country's forum where guns are so obsessive.


If those who continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners ceased their efforts to that end, there'd be little to no talk about guns.
So, your question, more relevantly asked:
Why do Democrats/leftists/liberals continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners?


----------



## task0778 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Get rid of what?


Guns, you idiot.  WTH do you think we're talking about?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Ridgerunner said:


> That's exactly what Neville Chamberlin said about Hitler, gin breath...  Sober up...


Excellent, do you feel you have now covered Hitler, or do you feel some other part needs covered too? Just that Hitler appears a billion times and you guys are still dragging him up.

So which part of Hitler do you feel you haven't had an answer for?


----------



## Ridgerunner (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Get rid of what?


Your toothbrush, dumbass...  If you are going to blow bubble's so will I...


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Guns, you idiot.  WTH do you think we're talking about?


I don't want guns taken away from Americans, you idiot. There's only about six to eight countries in the world that banned guns.

Where have I said guns in America should be banned? I've even posted a video on which surprising guns various Brits own.

Can you link a post of mine claiming I want to ban guns please.


----------



## miketx (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Get rid of what?


Typical lying commie leftist double speak babble.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


Because if your enemy has them and you do not you are your enemies bitch. That is not how America wants to live so we have guns.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman blowing more bubbles...


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Because if your enemy has them and you do not you are your enemies bitch. That is not how America wants to live so we have guns.


But you guys have been repeating that for decades and centuries. The planet has heard you for decades and centuries.

The question is, why are you so fucking anal in repeating it? The planet fucking heard you, shut the fuck about it.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Feb 26, 2022)

no


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> But you guys have been repeating that for decades and centuries. The planet has heard you for decades and centuries.
> 
> The question is, why are you so fucking anal in repeating it? The planet fucking heard you, shut the fuck about it.


Because there is always some idiot talking about getting rid of them meanwhile the dangers of the world never change.


----------



## miketx (Feb 26, 2022)

Ridgerunner said:


> Captain Caveman blowing more bubbles...
> 
> View attachment 607540


Bubbles came back looking for him last night.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Because there is always some idiot talking about getting rid of them meanwhile the dangers of the world never change.


Let them talk, don't rise to the occasion and ignore them. Be adult about it.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What speaks loudly, Brits are vastly more sensible with guns. In the UK, by all means use a knife, gun, baseball bat etc.. to protect and defend yourself, but bear in mind, you will be arrested as a matter of procedure to see if it was reasonable. If it was, no charges filed. Such cases crop up in the news.
> 
> If you are being attacked and you shoot, jobs a good un. If the burglar is fleeing and you shoot, expect jail time. Very reasonable, very sensible don't you think?
> 
> Yet, we Brits don't go on about this a billion times per day, you guys do. Why?


I think you have it all wrong, and you have a preconceived notion about guns.
You don't like them?  Great, don't own one.
But don't come to me and tell me how I should think.  Our Bill of Rights say I can own them.
And have every right to do so. 
You live your life across the pond and so will I on my side.

Idiots got to idiot.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns? I have never ever been to a country, nor on another country's forum where guns are so obsessive.


If those who continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners ceased their efforts to that end, there'd be little to no talk about guns.
So, your question, more relevantly asked:
Why do Democrats/leftists/liberals continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners?


----------



## task0778 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I don't want guns taken away from Americans, you idiot. There's only about six to eight countries in the world that banned guns.
> 
> Where have I said guns in America should be banned? I've even posted a video on which surprising guns various Brits own.
> 
> Can you link a post of mine claiming I want to ban guns please.



So, now we're getting somewhere.  You don't want to ban all guns, just some of them, right?  As if AR-15s and the like, banning them will 'cleanse' Americans of our gun troubles, right?  You haven't exactly been forthcoming on exactly what you would do to accomplish that.  So why don't you quit beating around the bush and stand up and tell us WTF you think should be done?  Cuz right now all you're doing is trolling.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Fuck me…



  Sorry, I don't swing that way.

  Perhaps if you approached your fellow British faggot, Tainted Tommy…


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Let them talk, don't rise to the occasion and ignore them. Be adult about it.


The unheard quickly become the forgotten. We will continue protect our rights for as long as there will be those willing to take them away.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Ridgerunner said:


> Your toothbrush, dumbass...  If you are going to blow bubble's so will I...


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I don't want guns taken away from Americans, you idiot. There's only about six to eight countries in the world that banned guns.
> 
> Where have I said guns in America should be banned? I've even posted a video on which surprising guns various Brits own.
> 
> Can you link a post of mine claiming I want to ban guns please.


It is estimated that *1,029,615 individuals use guns every year in self-defense*, excluding those in the police force and the military.

Of those people, *162,000 said they “almost certainly would have been killed” *without their firearm to protect them.

To put it in perspective, the average *homicide gun-related death per year is 11,208.*

The right to self-defense in this nation should never be put in question. Guns save more lives than they take by a staggering amount.









						Opinion: Guns Save Lives And Should Not Be Taken Away
					

The freedom to carry a gun in this country is a privilege I refuse to take for granted. It is arguably one of the most valuable freedoms we have been blessed with in this nation,




					www.liberty.edu


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> I think you have it all wrong, and you have a preconceived notion about guns.
> You don't like them?  Great, don't own one.
> But don't come to me and tell me how I should think.  Our Bill of Rights say I can own them.
> And have every right to do so.
> ...


I've owned shot guns in the past, but the only time time shoot now is down in the Lake District at a clay pigeon centre. I can own a gun as well, my clean past etc.. allows me to, and I have. But I no longer bother, we're simply not obsessed over here. You guys worry about your enemies, Hitler, Russians and the Chinese climbing through your windows. We don't hold such worries, and each passing day confirms this.

Meister, how many enemies have climbed through your windows to shoot you?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> It is estimated that *1,029,615 individuals use guns every year in self-defense*, excluding those in the police force and the military.
> 
> Of those people, *162,000 said they “almost certainly would have been killed” *without their firearm to protect them.
> 
> ...


Is it because your country is rife with gun nuts, so you need to protect yourself from such a problem?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Is it because your country is rife with gun nuts, so you need to protect yourself from such a problem?



  You don't know anything about my country, and nothing about my country is any of your fucking business anyway.

  You're a British piece of shit who has no standing, and no knowledge with regard to my country.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

So Meister . The thread has covered Independence, Brits have guns, you have the 2nd amendment, a tiny proportion (some criminals) have guns, you can use reasonable force in the UK, Hitler is dead and won't invade you, enemies don't climb through your window, Americans won't lose their guns despite what some nasty Democrats say.

Do you think USMB can now move forward without all this, or do you and others feel some parts still need clarified


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You don't know anything about my country, and nothing about my country is any of your fucking business anyway.
> 
> You're a British piece of shit who has no standing, and no knowledge with regard to my country.


Clearly you have no knowledge of the UK. 

Yes, been to America a few times, been to North Carolina a few times to see relatives off my mother's side. Only seen one gun, on a female police officer in Florida.

Have you seen any guns in the UK?


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I've owned shot guns in the past, but the only time time shoot now is down in the Lake District at a clay pigeon centre. I can own a gun as well, my clean past etc.. allows me to, and I have. But I no longer bother, we're simply not obsessed over here. You guys worry about your enemies, Hitler, Russians and the Chinese climbing through your windows. We don't hold such worries, and each passing day confirms this.
> 
> Meister, how many enemies have climbed through your windows to shoot you?


Number one, we aren't worrying with Hitler, Russians, and the Chinese climbing through our windows.  What kind of bullshit are you trying to spew, son?
Number two. it's our RIGHT to own firearms.   So don't confuse 'obsessed' with our 'rights'. How hard is that to sink into your thick skull.
Number three, if, or when somebody climbs through my window, he/she will wish they hadn't.
The firearm is an equalizer, just how hard is that to understand?

Again, if you don't want to own a gun, don't.
I guess it boils down to our rights is just something you can't understand.
Perhaps, you should just give up.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Do you call yourself "Coyote" because you are in support of the trafficking of humans across the border?
> You do know that's slang for your username...yeah, I'm sure you do.



  She has openly defended those very policies.

  I think, however, that a buffoonish cartoon character whose elaborate schemes to trap a road runner always backfire to violent and humorous effect, is probably more apropos.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So Meister . The thread has covered Independence, Brits have guns, you have the 2nd amendment, a tiny proportion (some criminals) have guns, you can use reasonable force in the UK, Hitler is dead and won't invade you, enemies don't climb through your window, Americans won't lose their guns despite what some nasty Democrats say.
> 
> Do you think USMB can now move forward without all this, or do you and others feel some parts still need clarified


Clearly, you're full of shit and don't have a clue of what your talking about.
You can't even define what "a tiny proportion (some criminals) have guns" is.  So you are just talking out your ass
trying to perpetuate your 'OPINION' on us yanks.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


Why are you so obsessed with banning gun ownership?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Because we have over 30,000 gun deaths and 8500 gun murders each year
> We have had seven Presidents shot by guns
> More than any other nation, we have had continual gum massacres of innocent people.
> 
> That is why we are obsessed with guns


At least you're honest about the numbers.  Leftists usually lie about them.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Tell it to the Sandy Hook parents who had their six year olds slaughtered
> 
> Small price to pay for their second amendment rights


The school faculty should have been better prepared.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Lot of troubled kids out there
> 
> Thankfully nothing to stop them from obtaining the weapon of their choice


They can use a car as a murder weapon.  Do you want to ban cars?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You guys do it every 5 minutes, every day, every week, every month, every year, every decade, every century. So that issue is now resolved, no need for you to ever mention that again.
> 
> I'm here to cleanse Americans of their gun troubles.


I don't have any gun troubles.  Mine work just fine


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Do you think USMB can now move forward without all this, or do you and others feel some parts still need clarified


If those who continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners ceased their efforts to that end, there'd be little to no talk about guns.
So, your question, more relevantly asked:
Why do Democrats/leftists/liberals continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> Clearly, you're full of shit and don't have a clue of what your talking about.
> You can't even define what "a tiny proportion (some criminals) have guns" is.  So you are just talking out your ass
> trying to perpetuate your 'OPINION' on us yanks.


5.5 million crimes reported in England and Wales 2020/21, of which 6,622 were by firearm and 30 deaths by firearm, out of a population of some 68 million people.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> I don't have any gun troubles.  Mine work just fine


So why repeat them if they don't trouble you?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So why repeat them if they don't trouble you?


Because they're repeaters...lol


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Because they're repeaters...lol


It's because you're full of bovine excrement.

I tell you something, voted Tory then UKIP then back to Tory all my life, I'm UK Right Wing. But I'll tell you what, your Lefties must roll their fucking eyes every time you guys rinse, wash, repeat this gun shit on a daily basis. I support the American Right, but this gun shit is embarrassing.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> 5.5 million crimes reported in England and Wales 2020/21, of which 6,622 were by firearm and 30 deaths by firearm, out of a population of some 68 million people.


We have over 330 million people here in the US,  You are talking about the US, not your 68 million in the UK.
It's a little different, so use our numbers and lets talk about those numbers and leave your paltry numbers where they belong.
You're a strange duck.....


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> It's because you're full of bovine excrement.
> 
> I tell you something, voted Tory then UKIP then back to Tory all my life, I'm UK Right Wing. But I'll tell you what, your Lefties must roll their fucking eyes every time you guys rinse, wash, repeat this gun shit on a daily basis. I support the American Right, but this gun shit is embarrassing.


Don't worry about it, you're not part of it, so fuck off.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> It's because you're full of bovine excrement.
> 
> I tell you something, voted Tory then UKIP then back to Tory all my life, I'm UK Right Wing. But I'll tell you what, your Lefties must roll their fucking eyes every time you guys rinse, wash, repeat this gun shit on a daily basis. I support the American Right, but this gun shit is embarrassing.


How many lives have been saved IN THE UNITED STATES, NOT THE UK with having a gun?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 26, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You mean the owners of the guns that shot at Sandy Hook and other schools and public places right?



Meh....
I think he means more like Adolph Hitler......Idi Amin.......Joseph Stalin   etc.
You know... the hundreds of millions they shot to death because the others had had their guns taken away.

Imagine the *200,000,000* that lost their lives because of the simply idiotic argument that by disarming the population, 20 were saved .
Do you even know the difference between 200 MILLION and 20 ??

Yep...Only morons and Authoritarian asslickers think like that.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you take a country's crime stats, they're low. Then out of those crimes, which crimes are gun related, as in, what percentage involved a gun. A banana in a pocket doesn't count. The figures are miniscule to everyone's normal days life. Yet, they're mentioned to be the majority of problems, we are overwhelmed with criminals with guns and bazookas.
> 
> But with gun arguments, it's both convenient and lazy to claim there's an epidemic of gun tooting criminals. Anyone claiming that is banking on their adversely not having more than two brain cells, to be honest. It's like the abortion debate and all of a sudden, there's a billion rapists, yet the stats are less than 1%.



Captain Fucktard.......

You're probably a Government boot-licking asswipe who lives with mommy so never had to fight for anything in your life....much less freedom.

When Russia rolls in and takes your defenseless country I hope the USA doesn't intervene.   They can have you cowardly Communist loving freaks.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> We have over 330 million people here in the US,  You are talking about the US, not your 68 million in the UK.
> It's a little different, so use our numbers and lets talk about those numbers and leave your paltry numbers where they belong.
> You're a strange duck.....


My browser searches don't default to American sites, you will find the same about Brit sites. Just split the figures down to per capita you strange duck, to get a comparison-ish.

If I search American stats, I have to trawl through all the news story sites to try and find anything of use, takes yonks At least in the UK, the ONS is first to crop up, but then, you have to download their spreadsheets of stats to decipher the figures.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Meh....
> I think he means more like Adolph Hitler......Idi Amin.......Joseph Stalin   etc.
> 
> You know... the hundreds of millions they shot to death because the others had had their guns taken away.


Rinse, wash, repeat.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> It's because you're full of bovine excrement.
> 
> I tell you something, voted Tory then UKIP then back to Tory all my life, I'm UK Right Wing. But I'll tell you what, your Lefties must roll their fucking eyes every time you guys rinse, wash, repeat this gun shit on a daily basis. I support the American Right, but this gun shit is embarrassing.



  The position of any British piece of shit within the British political spectrum is completely irrelevant to any American.  No matter where you are, politically, compared to other British shit, you are still an artifact of the degenerate society against which we Americans rebelled in order to found out country, and your opinions are equally irrelevant and without standing in our country.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My browser searches don't default to American sites, you will find the same about Brit sites. Just split the figures down to per capita you strange duck, to get a comparison-ish.
> 
> If I search American stats, I have to trawl through all the news story sites to try and find anything of use, takes yonks At least in the UK, the ONS is first to crop up, but then, you have to download their spreadsheets of stats to decipher the figures.


Then you're not really qualified to debate the subject, other than just spewing your opinion, CC.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> How many lives have been saved IN THE UNITED STATES, NOT THE UK with having a gun?


Zero.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> Then you're not really qualified to debate the subject, other than just spewing your opinion, CC.


But you guys seem qualified to give your opinion about the UK. Hypocrisy much  M !!


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> But you guys seem qualified to talk about the UK. Hypocrisy much !!


Apples and oranges. What did I say about the UK other than it doesn't have the population that we in America do?


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Zero.


It is estimated that *1,029,615 individuals use guns every year in self-defense*, excluding those in the police force and the military.

Of those people, *162,000 said they “almost certainly would have been killed” *without their firearm to protect them.

To put it in perspective, the average *homicide gun-related death per year is 11,208.*

The right to self-defense in this nation should never be put in question. Guns save more lives than they take by a staggering amount.








						Opinion: Guns Save Lives And Should Not Be Taken Away
					

The freedom to carry a gun in this country is a privilege I refuse to take for granted. It is arguably one of the most valuable freedoms we have been blessed with in this nation,




					www.liberty.edu


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> Apples and oranges. What did I say about the UK other than it doesn't have the population that we in America do?


No, not directly you. The ones on here about gun debates etc.. seem to feel qualified to spout opinions of other nations about guns, yet get in a hissy fit at foreigners returning the favour.

Why is that?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> It's because you're full of bovine excrement.
> 
> I tell you something, voted Tory then UKIP then back to Tory all my life, I'm UK Right Wing. But I'll tell you what, your Lefties must roll their fucking eyes every time you guys rinse, wash, repeat this gun shit on a daily basis. I support the American Right, but this gun shit is embarrassing.


The ANTI-gun shit is embarrassing...lol


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> It is estimated that *1,029,615 individuals use guns every year in self-defense*, excluding those in the police force and the military.
> 
> Of those people, *162,000 said they “almost certainly would have been killed” *without their firearm to protect them.
> 
> ...


162,000 opinions, wow. That's high.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> 162,000 opinions, wow. That's high.


Your losing the argument.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The ANTI-gun shit is embarrassing...lol


I'm not anti gun, I just find the gun nut brigade regurgitating the same old gun shite every five seconds nauseating.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No, not directly you. The ones on here about gun debates etc.. seem to feel qualified to spout opinions of other nations about guns, yet get in a hissy fit at foreigners returning the favour.
> 
> Why is that?


I am responsible for myself.
Period


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> Your losing the argument.


Brit sarcasm.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm not anti gun, I just find the gun nut brigade regurgitating the same old gun shite every five seconds nauseating.


you are doing exactly the same, and it's your thread.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Brit sarcasm.


The numbers are high....in real America.
Sorry it doesn't go along with your mantra.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I tell you something, voted Tory then UKIP then back to Tory all my life, I'm UK Right Wing. But I'll tell you what, your Lefties must roll their fucking eyes every time you guys rinse, wash, repeat this gun shit on a daily basis. I support the American Right, but this gun shit is embarrassing.


If those who continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners ceased their efforts to that end, there'd be little to no talk about guns.
So, your question, more relevantly asked:
Why do Democrats/leftists/liberals continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm not anti gun, I just find the gun nut brigade regurgitating the same old gun shite every five seconds nauseating.


How guns do you own and what are they?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> The numbers are high....in real America.
> Sorry it doesn't go along with your mantra.


Did you notice something though. As I've said about the same ole same things that get repeated about guns, you threw up the "saved by gun" comment. That's another regular one that appears.

So you've listed your stats, let's take them as true, I've listed some available Brit stats, also assumed true but we don't keep a log of saved individuals, so we have it covered; done and dusted.

So at least "saved by gun" need not pop up again. Or will it (is the Pope Catholic).


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 26, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> How guns do you own and what are they?


I used to own two shot guns, not done so for a while. At the clay pigeon shoot in the Lakes, they're Beretta shot guns.

Where I live, there's a gun range 12 miles away. I suppose I could join and shoot some rifles, but the interest to do so is zero.

I believe people should have guns, but they should be vetted, guns stored securely, not carried around in public, the odd model and feature restricted/banned. Oh, just like in the UK. I believe shot gun certificates have been held by 9 year olds, no doubt living on farms, there's no age limit.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 26, 2022)

Ya know,
If it wasn't for Progressive, Leftist, Radical Policies that MAKE societies dangerous....guns might not be needed.

Then again those same imbeciles get people to vote for them and or they become Kings and Queens and so it goes.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I used to own two shot guns, not done so for a while. At the clay pigeon shoot in the Lakes, they're Beretta shot guns.
> 
> Where I live, there's a gun range 12 miles away. I suppose I could join and shoot some rifles, but the interest to do so is zero.
> 
> I believe people should have guns, but they should be vetted, guns stored securely, not carried around in public, the odd model and feature restricted/banned. Oh, just like in the UK. I believe shot gun certificates have been held by 9 year olds, no doubt living on farms, there's no age limit.


Not carried around in public?  That's called "an unarmed population"...lol


----------



## task0778 (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I believe people should have guns, but they should be vetted, guns stored securely, not carried around in public, the odd model and feature restricted/banned. Oh, just like in the UK. I believe shot gun certificates have been held by 9 year olds, no doubt living on farms, there's no age limit.



Are private gun sales vetted in Britain?  In the US, we do vet people who buy guns online, in a store that sells them, or in gun shows.  Do you think any of your measures will do anything to reduce crime with guns?  If you outlaw AR15s and the like, will that matter?  Do you think criminals, gang members, terrorists, drug dealers, etc., will obey any gun control laws?  I'd kinda like my daughter or grand-daughter to have a gun handy if they're walking home at night.  

Long story short, I'm not feeling very cleansed yet.


----------



## ... (Feb 26, 2022)

Meister said:


> How many lives have been saved by having a gun, Scooter?
> Look at the other side of the coin from time to time, it would keep you humble.


The other side of the coin doesn’t need a weekend GI Joe with what are essentially M16s.
It’s shown to be very dangerous for people.


----------



## ... (Feb 26, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Meh....
> I think he means more like Adolph Hitler......Idi Amin.......Joseph Stalin   etc.
> You know... the hundreds of millions they shot to death because the others had had their guns taken away.
> 
> ...


You guys live in a sick black hole of stupidity and and addiction to paranoia.

You know nothing about this country.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 26, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Well, when people arent allowed to own guns....
> 
> View attachment 607336


This is a lie.

Guns were neither ‘banned’ nor ‘confiscated’ during the Nazi regime.









						The Hitler gun control lie
					

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong




					www.salon.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns?


As we see in post #4, conservatives use guns as partisan fearmongering and a political weapon – they contrive and propagate lies about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Are Democrats wanting to remove all guns, or just restrict the types that many nations adopt.


Neither.

That Democrats want to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns is a lie.


----------



## Meister (Feb 26, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The other side of the coin doesn’t need a weekend GI Joe with what are essentially M16s.
> It’s shown to be very dangerous for people.


That is not up to you to decide.
I like the word you used...."essentially".
Either it is or it isn't...but, if it looks scary to you.........


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm not anti gun, I just find the gun nut brigade regurgitating the same old gun shite every five seconds nauseating.


What’s just as nauseating are the right’s ridiculous lies about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As we see in post #4, conservatives use guns as partisan fearmongering and a political weapon – they contrive and propagate lies about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.


Why do you lie like this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns? I have never ever been to a country, nor on another country's forum where guns are so obsessive.


If those who continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners ceased their efforts to that end, there'd be little to no talk about guns.
So, your question, more relevantly asked:
Why do Democrats/leftists/liberals continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do you lie like this?



  Why does a pig wallow in mud?

  Why does a fly eat shit?

  Why does C_Clayton_Jones lie?

  What point is there in asking why a thing does what that thing does?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 27, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Are private gun sales vetted in Britain?  In the US, we do vet people who buy guns online, in a store that sells them, or in gun shows.  Do you think any of your measures will do anything to reduce crime with guns?  If you outlaw AR15s and the like, will that matter?  Do you think criminals, gang members, terrorists, drug dealers, etc., will obey any gun control laws?  I'd kinda like my daughter or grand-daughter to have a gun handy if they're walking home at night.
> 
> Long story short, I'm not feeling very cleansed yet.


The vetting procedure is quite thorough. Your certificate will have your photo and you supply two referees for a firearms certificate and one referee for a shotgun certificate. Your guns are listed on certificate, it I think it costs £5 or £10 to add and remove a gun on a firearms certificate. If you buy a gun online, it is posted to a local gun dealer that you nominate. If periodically you're asked by the police to show your certificate, it must be available. You need a certificate to buy ammo.

What this does is, it reduces those who are not suitable to own a gun to easily obtain a gun. It provides a framework where, deviating from it can land you a large fine, and/or jail time, and confiscated guns. So this VASTLY reduces gun incidents and deaths. But those deemed sensible can enjoy guns. Go to shoots or clay shoots etc.. If you own a field or two, go shooting at vermin and clay pigeons.

If you break a law where the breach is a criminal offence, then you are a criminal. If it's reported to the police, it's a crime statistic. So if you broke a window, and ran away, the crime is reported and the stat created. Did it involve a gun? Nope. A very small percentage of recorded crime involve firearms (UK), something like 0.1%. despite regulation, there are still some 50 to 60 gun deaths on the UK, you will still get incidents. But to scrap gun regulations because 0.1% of criminals don't comply?? Absurd.

But what if you get attacked? ONS figures showed that 0.3% of adults were victims of robbery in the year ending March 2016, but 9% of those surveyed were very worried they would experience it in the forthcoming year – 30 times higher than the rate of victimisation. But to scrap gun regulation because you have a 0.3% chance of being robbed?? Absurd.

But there's no harm in glorifying these tiny percentages, to make them sound massive and rife. But a quick research merely gets people shaking their heads at your regurgitated gun shit. But no doubt, we will still witness this crime stat washed, rinsed, repeated a billion times to come.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What’s just as nauseating are the right’s ridiculous lies about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


Precisely.

This forum is to highlight the same old same with guns. It's -

1. Independence, we kicked you Brits out over guns 
2. Criminals don't follow rules 
3. Other countries banned guns 
4. Millions saved their life due to a gun 
Etc..

And so we cover them. Regulation doesn't mean ban, the war was about taxation and the French helping etc.. and wasn't about guns, crime stats are low......and so on.

The the next day, "We kicked you Brits out, criminals don't follow rules .......". It's as though the previous conversations never took place, it just goes on and on and on, washed, rinsed, repeated.

And my thread is, Why? Why can't Americans with guns retain this information in their heads, why distort it, why change it, why repeat it?

So a person doing that must be one of two things. They either have a game plan, an agenda, or, their IQ is very very low, lower than Bidens approval figures. But it's the former, game plans and agendas. After a billion times, it gets rather tedious and nauseating.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Meister said:


> That is not up to you to decide.
> I like the word you used...."essentially".
> Either it is or it isn't...but, if it looks scary to you.........


For fire power it is.


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...





Government is evil.  If only the police have guns you live in a police state.

I have better guns than the cops.  They leave me alone.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

westwall said:


> Government is evil.  If only the police have guns you live in a police state.
> 
> I have better guns than the cops.  They leave me alone.


Oh they’ll leave you alone alright, until you break the law, then a SWAT team will take care of you and your guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What this does is, it reduces those who are not suitable to own a gun to easily obtain a gun. It provides a framework where, deviating from it can land you a large fine, and/or jail time, and confiscated guns. So this VASTLY reduces gun incidents and deaths.


This is where I ask you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws you cite and the lower rates of gun violence you claim they bring..
This is where you run away from the challenge because you know you cannot do so.
As always.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Precisely.
> This forum is to highlight the same old same with guns. It's -
> 1. Independence, we kicked you Brits out over guns
> 2. Criminals don't follow rules
> ...


Funny how you refuse to address the responses to your query that do not fit nicely into your preconceptions.
It's almost as if you arent willing, or able,  to have an honest dscussion of the issue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns? I have never ever been to a country, nor on another country's forum where guns are so obsessive.


If those who continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners ceased their efforts to that end, there'd be little to no talk about guns.
So, your question, more relevantly asked:
Why do Democrats/leftists/liberals continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners?


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> Guns were neither ‘banned’ nor ‘confiscated’ during the Nazi regime.
> 
> ...



Moron…..you idiots keep citing this article hoping no one actually reads it……

I myself keep pointing out the fact that Germany began registering guns in the 1920s and confiscating guns during Weimar…….the nazis used the gun registration records to then disarm their political enemies and the Jews….the groups they then went ahead and murdered……….

This shows, you idiot, exactly why we oppose your gun control laws….the Germans used the exact same reasons to take guns away from their people…..telling the Germans they didn’t need their guns and that they would be safer without them…..you moron…the exact same reasons you idiots say we need to give up our guns now……..

from your own link you idiot…
*
the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.*
*—————
The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.*



You morons cite this article that directly shows that Gun registration in peace time leads to gun confiscation by evil regimes in the future…..you idiots


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


You live in the UK so what to yo care if Americans own guns?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2022)

The facts are that the vast majority of legal gun owners and by vast I mean 99.999% will never murder anyone, never shoot anyone, and never accidentally shoot someone.

You people love to hyperinflate the instances of murders committed with guns without accounting for the fact that most murders tale place in poverty stricken, inner city areas where de-facto segregation still exists, schools are below par, employment opportunities are near zero and drugs are crime are allowed to run rampant by the powers that be.

You ignore the fact that an area of just a few square blocks can have a murder rate that is 10 times higher than the national average (and that these small areas actually skew the gun murder rate for the entire country) but a same sized area just a couple miles away will have a murder rate of just a fraction of the national average and many of those areas will have a murder rate that is ZERO.

You ignore that there are complex historical, socioeconomic, cultural and political causes of generational poverty and that the government knows where the murder hot spots are but choose to do nothing about it.

So you foreigners that think your opinion about the US and the ability of law abiding citizens to own guns matter should actually educate yourselves on the real causes of violence in society and try to wrap your head around the idea that in this country we don't curb one man's rights simply because another man may abuse those freedoms.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You mean the owners of the guns that shot at Sandy Hook and other schools and public places right?


Wrong.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Wrong.


But those owners shot up Sandy Hook and other public places right?


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> But those owners shot up Sandy Hook and other public places right?


If all gun owners did that everyone would be dead.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Oh they’ll leave you alone alright, until you break the law, then a SWAT team will take care of you and your guns.


And why do you have a problem with that?

In this country we don't curb a person's freedoms just because someone else breaks the law.

Blaming all gun owners for crimes committed with guns is no different than blaming all men for every rape.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> But those owners shot up Sandy Hook and other public places right?


FYI one mentally retarded man killed his mother to steal HER guns and then shot up that school.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> If all gun owners did that everyone would be dead.


Answer the question.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> FYI one mentally retarded man killed his mother to steal HER guns and then shot up that school.


The others?


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Answer the question.


You got your answer.


----------



## Meister (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> For fire power it is.


Not really, it is the appearance/optics of the rifle.


----------



## Meister (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Answer the question.


Would you like to talk about how many lives are saved each year because of a firearm?


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Meister said:


> Not really, it is the appearance/optics of the rifle.


The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Meister said:


> Would you like to talk about how many lives are saved each year because of a firearm?


So you’re chickening out on the question.

Very typical of far right people who avoid facts.


----------



## Meister (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
> It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.


On the streets?  How about on the firing range?
But thanks for YOUR opinion, it is duly noted.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Meister said:


> On the streets?  How about on the firing range?
> But thanks for YOUR opinion, it is duly noted.


The AR15 etc do not belong in the hands of the general public because crazy people get them and shoot people; Las Vegas was almost 500 casualties.
Please be careful, I can back up anything I say on the subject…


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You live in the UK so what to yo care if Americans own guns?


Whey hayyy, read down the thread, pmsl !!!!!!!!


----------



## Meister (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 etc do not belong in the hands of the general public because crazy people get them and shoot people; Las Vegas was almost 500 casualties.
> Please be careful, I can back up anything I say on the subject…


Our Second Amendment say you are wrong.  Again, thanks for your opinion.
The Bill of Rights is on my side.

By the way, crazy people will use whatever it takes.  Bump stocks are a prime example.
Your wet dream would only hurt those you would never have to worry about.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Meister said:


> Our Second Amendment say you are wrong.  Again, thanks for your opinion.
> The Bill of Rights is on my side.
> 
> By the way, crazy people will use whatever it takes.  Bump stocks are a prime example.
> Your wet dream would only hurt those you would never have to worry about.


Early American militiamen were the only ones who were allowed to have rifles with bayonet lugs… Gun control measures are very very old in this country.

American history and active gun control says that you and your buddies are dead wrong.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 etc do not belong in the hands of the general public because crazy people get them and shoot people; Las Vegas was almost 500 casualties.
> Please be careful, I can back up anything I say on the subject…


If you are a liberal your attitudes and political actions are the problem, not guns. If you goad someone long enough or deprive them long enough they will turn on you. You have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> You got your answer.


The question was you to you.

You’re just afraid to answer.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The question was you to you.
> 
> You’re just afraid to answer.


Repeat the question please.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> If you are a liberal your attitudes and political actions are the problem, not guns.


I’m not a liberal, I’m an historian who knows what he’s talking about.

The general public has proven that military grade weaponry is not healthy for society.

They are all going to be banned as in 1994, only this time there will be no sunset. Biden’s second term will be the time.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Repeat the question please.


Post # 183


----------



## Meister (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Early American militiamen were the only ones who were allowed to have rifles with bayonet lugs… Gun control measures are very very old in this country.
> 
> American history and active gun control says that you and your buddies are dead wrong.


Again, thank you for YOUR opinion.
Your deflection is duly noted


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Oh they’ll leave you alone alright, until you break the law, then a SWAT team will take care of you and your guns.




Maybe.  For one, I am very law abiding, and 2nd we are all friends.

So your point is pointless.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The vetting procedure is quite thorough. Your certificate will have your photo and you supply two referees for a firearms certificate and one referee for a shotgun certificate. Your guns are listed on certificate, it I think it costs £5 or £10 to add and remove a gun on a firearms certificate. If you buy a gun online, it is posted to a local gun dealer that you nominate. If periodically you're asked by the police to show your certificate, it must be available. You need a certificate to buy ammo.
> 
> What this does is, it reduces those who are not suitable to own a gun to easily obtain a gun. It provides a framework where, deviating from it can land you a large fine, and/or jail time, and confiscated guns. So this VASTLY reduces gun incidents and deaths. But those deemed sensible can enjoy guns. Go to shoots or clay shoots etc.. If you own a field or two, go shooting at vermin and clay pigeons.
> 
> ...




Yes...we get it....Britain has created so much red tape that normal people can't own guns...that, on top of the fact that self defense is not a Right of British people means this...

A rich member of the House of Lords will easily get through the paperwork and legal red tape to get guns.....all the guns they want....of the tiny selection of hunting pieces allowed......so that they and their rich buddies can go to one of their several private estates to hunt quail....

Meanwhile....

the woman in London who is violently gang raped will never be able to own or carry a gun to prevent the gang rape.....

This situation makes total sense to you.....

You are an idiot...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The facts are that the vast majority of legal gun owners and by vast I mean 99.999% will never murder anyone, never shoot anyone, and never accidentally shoot someone.
> 
> You people love to hyperinflate the instances of murders committed with guns without accounting for the fact that most murders tale place in poverty stricken, inner city areas where de-facto segregation still exists, schools are below par, employment opportunities are near zero and drugs are crime are allowed to run rampant by the powers that be.
> 
> ...




And they ignore the fact that 70-80% of gun murder victims are not normal citizens...the victims are criminals engaged in crime.....and of the rest of the victims, the vast majority are the friends and family of criminals, who are hit in the process of their criminal relation being targeted by other criminals....taking place in democrat party, gun controlled cities....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
> It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.




No...it wasn't......

Read more: Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

*The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”*

*“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”*


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 etc do not belong in the hands of the general public because crazy people get them and shoot people; Las Vegas was almost 500 casualties.
> Please be careful, I can back up anything I say on the subject…




Moron.....more people are killed by knives and clubs than by any rifles of any kind....you idiot.

And, you have to hide the truth about Las Vegas.......

The number actually killed in Las Vegas was 61...........

The number of people killed by a rental Truck in Nice, France, using a rental Truck?

86..... 435 wounded...

More people were killed in that one driving attack with the Rental truck than in any mass public shooting in the U.S....

*You are an idiot.....according to your logic, we need to ban cars and trucks..*


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> I’m not a liberal, I’m an historian who knows what he’s talking about.
> 
> The general public has proven that military grade weaponry is not healthy for society.
> 
> They are all going to be banned as in 1994, only this time there will be no sunset. Biden’s second term will be the time.


So you are also a prophet? 

The predominant murder weapon is the semi-auto handgun, not "military grade weaponry". As horrible as mass shootings are they pale in comparison to the general bloodbath that happens all over the place, albeit with usually just a single victim per incident. The irony is that while a mass shooting of multiple people involves only one murderer, the killing of a dozen or so others involves not one but a dozen or so murderers.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes...we get it....Britain has created so much red tape that normal people can't own guns...that, on top of the fact that self defense is not a Right of British people means this...
> 
> A rich member of the House of Lords will easily get through the paperwork and legal red tape to get guns.....all the guns they want....of the tiny selection of hunting pieces allowed......so that they and their rich buddies can go to one of their several private estates to hunt quail....
> 
> ...


Wheyy hayyy, it's happened again. Rinse, wash, repeat. People can't get guns, only the rich, and Rights, 3 in 1, wheyy heyy. Classic.

And repeat, and repeat, and repeat, wheyy heyy, lmfao.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wheyy hayyy, it's happened again. Rinse, wash, repeat. People can't get guns, only the rich, and Rights, 3 in 1, wheyy heyy. Classic.
> 
> And repeat, and repeat, and repeat, wheyy heyy, lmfao.




So...you have no response...

A rich member of the House of Lords easily gets guns....to go quail hunting on one of their private estates with their other rich buddies.....but the woman in London can't get a gun to prevent herself from being gang raped in a london park.....or her apartment, or an alley.....

Again, you have no response.....


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Post # 183


That was a sarcastic rhetorical question that doesn't deserve an answer (although I did answer it).


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
> It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.





So what.  The Founders wanted the government to be afraid of the people.  They wanted us to be as well armed as the government.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> That was a sarcastic rhetorical question that doesn't deserve an answer (although I did answer it).


It was neither and you failed to answer it.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

westwall said:


> So what.  The Founders wanted the government to be afraid of the people.  They wanted us to be as well armed as the government.


Vietnam taught you nothing.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> It was neither and you failed to answer it.


You failed to accept the answer.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> They are all going to be banned as in 1994, only this time there will be no sunset. Biden’s second term will be the time.


Actually not.

There’s no political will in Congress for another AWB.

And presidents alone can’t enact firearm regulatory laws – that’s what makes the right’s lie about Biden ‘banning’ and ‘confiscating’ guns so ignorant and idiotic, nothing but baseless conservative demagoguery.

Last, even if a new AWB were passed by Congress and signed into law, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

All of the above proves just how wrong and dishonest conservatives are – propagating their moronic lies and fearmongering about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually not.
> 
> There’s no political will in Congress for another AWB.
> 
> ...


That is the stated goal of the libs, therefore we take it seriously. 

Of course they're 'shooting themselves in the foot' every time they propose more restrictive gun laws as millions rush (are driven) to buy yet more guns.

I recently purchased a gun for home defense, as crime continues to rise in my city, especially burglaries and even home invasions. This because of lax liberal law enforcement. Car theft, formerly "grand theft auto", a felony, has been downgraded to "operating a motor vehicle without the owner's permission", with virtually no consequences. As a result this crime is now rampant.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
> It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.


Be that as it may – AR 15s, AK 47s, and other semi-auto clones of combat and battle rifles and carbines aren’t going anywhere; they will always be available to the general public.

Whether it’s banning abortion or banning AR 15s, ‘bans’ don’t work – they’re ineffective and pointless, nothing but unwarranted government excess and overreach.

That doesn’t mean we’re helpless to do something about gun crime and violence, it means whatever the solution might be, it’s not going to involve bans and restricting access to firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> That is the stated goal of the libs, therefore we take it seriously.
> 
> Of course they're 'shooting themselves in the foot' every time they propose more restrictive gun laws as millions rush (are driven) to buy yet more guns.


No, it’s an idiotic lie propagated by you and others on the dishonest right.

Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess firearms for lawful self-defense.

Liberals seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.

Needless to say, dishonest conservatives will ignore these facts and continue to propagate their moronic lies.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, it’s an idiotic lie propagated by you and others on the dishonest right.
> 
> Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess firearms for lawful self-defense.
> 
> ...


Of course not all libs are anti-gun. But those who are are liberals, and believe it or not many congresspersons are liberal and support restrictive gun laws. So, as Barry Goldwater voiced, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." So if we seem to be extreme it's in the defense of our constitutional gun liberties, and it's no vice.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All of the above proves just how wrong and dishonest conservatives are – propagating their moronic lies and fearmongering about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


Why do you lie like this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Liberals seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.
> Needless to say, dishonest conservativWhy do you lie like this?es will ignore these facts and continue to propagate their moronic lies.


Why do you lie like this?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> So...you have no response...
> 
> A rich member of the House of Lords easily gets guns....to go quail hunting on one of their private estates with their other rich buddies.....but the woman in London can't get a gun to prevent herself from being gang raped in a london park.....or her apartment, or an alley.....
> 
> Again, you have no response.....


You keep repeating the same old shit, we keep covering the same old shit. And what do you do? You repeat the same the same old shit again. Are you fucking retard on purpose or is it a unique gift?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The others?


What about them?

Mass shootings account for 1% or less of all murders


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You keep repeating the same old shit,...


And you keep ignoring responses you don't want to have to address.
Are you fucking retard on purpose or is it a unique gift?


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> You failed to accept the answer.


That’s okay coward.

see ya next argument.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Be that as it may – AR 15s, AK 47s, and other semi-auto clones of combat and battle rifles and carbines aren’t going anywhere; they will always be available to the general public.
> 
> Whether it’s banning abortion or banning AR 15s, ‘bans’ don’t work – they’re ineffective and pointless, nothing but unwarranted government excess and overreach.
> 
> That doesn’t mean we’re helpless to do something about gun crime and violence, it means whatever the solution might be, it’s not going to involve bans and restricting access to firearms.


Look at it like this:  banning M16s can only be good for society.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> What about them?
> 
> Mass shootings account for 1% or less of all murders


How many mass shootings have brought down over 400 people?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
> It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.


So what you really mean is any rifle chambered for  5.56 mm NATO rounds should be banned right?

And you're wrong about the ranges

The 7.62 NATO round (.308 Win) has an effective range of 1000 yds

the 5.56 is about 500 yds but in reality 300 yds is about all you'll get because the bullet is so light

the effective range of an AK 47 is less because the rifle is just flat out less accurate


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> How many mass shootings have brought down over 400 people?


you tell me


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> How many mass shootings have brought down over 400 people?


You don't see how confused and confusing your questions and responses are?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


You created a red herring
Now if you want to talk about rights let's do it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A rich member of the House of Lords will easily get through the paperwork and legal red tape to get guns.....all the guns they want....of the tiny selection of hunting pieces allowed......so that they and their rich buddies can go to one of their several private estates to hunt quail....
> 
> Meanwhile....
> 
> ...



  It makes perfect sense to anyone who, like Captain Caveman or any other piece of shit on the left *wrong*, is on the side of violent criminals or tyrants, and against the side of human beings.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 27, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Precisely.
> 
> This forum is to highlight the same old same with guns. It's -
> 
> ...



  Those are all entirely valid arguments against criminal-loving filth such as yourself who want to disarm human beings to make us easier prey for criminals.

  Dismissing those arguments without addressing them will not make them go away.

  That you are openly on the side of criminals, openly on the side of tyrants, and openly against the side of actual human beings is more than enough reason why no human being should ever take any position of yours seriously.

  And that you are a British piece of shit, a pathetic relic of the degenerate culture which we Americans rejected in order to found out country, is more than enough reason why you should just shut the fuck up about anything to do with how we Americans should run our country.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
> It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.


You do realize that the "street" is controlled by the gangsta subculture. How would you remove these weapons from them?


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Look at it like this:  banning M16s can only be good for society.


 Not for M16 owners.


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Vietnam taught you nothing.





It taught YOU nothing.

DURRRR


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 27, 2022)

jet57 said:


> How many mass shootings have brought down over 400 people?


You do realize that a shooting that just injures three or more people is now called a _*mass shooting *_(horrors). It used to be called 'a shooting with multiple victims'. Libs and the media turn these events into cudgels to beat gun owners over the head with. Fortunately, we are protected by our constitutional headgear.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So what you really mean is any rifle chambered for  5.56 mm NATO rounds should be banned right?
> 
> And you're wrong about the ranges
> 
> ...


Ahh, another litmus test.

You best check your stats there sport.  I f I have to post the proofs, you're going to learn the same lesson as M14shooter did.


----------



## ... (Feb 27, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> You do realize that a shooting that just injures three or more people is now called a _*mass shooting *_(horrors). It used to be called 'a shooting with multiple victims'. Libs and the media turn these events into cudgels to beat gun owners over the head with. Fortunately, we are protected by our constitutional headgear.


Please stop the bullshit.  You're dancing around now trying to avoid the truth that you're absolutely wrong.  Your "constitutional head gear: has flattened your head.





__





						The Complete History of the AR-15 Rifle | Small Wars Journal
					

The history of this iconic American weapon, from its inception in 1959 to the present day.




					smallwarsjournal.com
				






> *1963: The M-16 is Born*
> 
> With the AR-15 in the hands of the Air Force, a standard model of the rifle is born. They dub it the M-16, the most famous service weapon of the United States Military.
> 
> ...



THAT is a single article; there are volumes written on it.  You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 27, 2022)

Would sissie lefties feel better if we talked about fashion on the 2nd Amendment forum?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Ahh, another litmus test.
> 
> You best check your stats there sport.  I f I have to post the proofs, you're going to learn the same lesson as M14shooter did.











						How Far Can An AR-15 Shoot Accurately? - Gun Goals
					

Ever wondered how far can an AR-15 shoot accurately? While the effective shooting distance varies based on caliber here's our break down. [DETAILS]




					gungoals.com
				




Effective range is defined as the distance a torso sized target can be hit 50% of the time

An AR 15  Firing 5.56 NATO rounds has an effective range of 400-600 meters optimally the fighting range is less than that

A .308 (7.62 mm) has an effective range of 800 meters


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Please stop the bullshit.  You're dancing around now trying to avoid the truth that you're absolutely wrong.  Your "constitutional head gear: has flattened your head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is absolutely no difference between an AR 15 and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for a NATO 5.56 mm

NONE  ZERO  ZIP  NADA


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 28, 2022)

jet57 said:


> How many mass shootings have brought down over 400 people?





The muslim terroris in Nice, France, using a rental truck killed 86 and injured 435...you idiot...more than the guy in Las Vegas with his rifle..........


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 28, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Please stop the bullshit.  You're dancing around now trying to avoid the truth that you're absolutely wrong.  Your "constitutional head gear: has flattened your head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And again...the truth about the AR-15, the civilian and police rifle....


*The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”
*
*“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963.

 It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”*



Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You created a red herring
> Now if you want to talk about rights let's do it.


Wheyyy heyyyy, Rights. If there's a thousand mention on guns, Rights come up twelve point two billion times. Yes, Rights have been fucking flogged rotten. You have Rights to guns, the fucking planet knows that, aliens on distant worlds know that, and your fucking thick skull blurts out........Rights. The whole point of the thread is gun retards blurting out the same old shit about guns. And right on cue, another retard.

Boy they're flocking in, like flies to a cow turd.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It makes perfect sense to anyone who, like Captain Caveman or any other piece of shit on the left *wrong*, is on the side of violent criminals or tyrants, and against the side of human beings.


I right wing you fucking pillock. And you are a thick hunt on crime stats. Fucking bellend.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Those are all entirely valid arguments against criminal-loving filth such as yourself who want to disarm human beings to make us easier prey for criminals.
> 
> Dismissing those arguments without addressing them will not make them go away.
> 
> ...


There you go, wash, rinse, repeat. That's all you can you do. That's the purpose of the thread. Guns are mentioned, and your tiny brain can only default to Rights, criminals, gun saved my life and independence. Your brain has no capability to move on from that. I have two Jack Russell dogs, they're daft as a brush and thick as fuck. But I tell you what, they're little Einstein's compared to bellends like you.

I can only assume it's because your family are inbred for centuries.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I right wing you fucking pillock. And you are a thick hunt on crime stats. Fucking bellend.



  You're as much right-wing as Bruce Jenner is a woman.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're as much right-wing as Bruce Jenner is a woman.


I've voted Tory, UKIP, then Tory all my life. You are an inbred retard. You're American, you can only default between on and off, chalk and cheese, black or white. You have to pigeon hole everything in life as one or the other, you have no brain capacity to see politics on a multi axis.

Once a thick hunt, always a thick hunt.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> There you go, wash, rinse, repeat. That's all you can you do. That's the purpose of the thread. Guns are mentioned, and your tiny brain can only default to Rights, criminals, gun saved my life and independence.



  You only dismiss those arguments, because as a British piece of shit, you don't believe in human rights, and you are on the side of criminals against that of human beings.

  Your refusal to recognize such things is not at all an argument against anything I've said, but a demonstration of how stupid, ethically-vapid, and brainwashed you are.

  It puts the lie to your claim, in a previous post, to be rights wing.  At least on an American scale, it puts you very solidly on the left *wrong*.

  Human beings, as opposed to left *wrong*-wing garbage such as yourself, believe in and support the very essential human rights that you prefer to dismiss and disregard.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Bob Blaylock has no brain capacity to absorb the thread, hence the retarded comments.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You only dismiss those arguments, because as a British piece of shit, you don't believe in human rights, and you are on the side of criminals against that of human beings.
> 
> Your refusal to recognize such things is not at all an argument against anything I've said, but a demonstration of how stupid, ethically-vapid, and brainwashed you are.
> 
> ...


I don't believe in human rights, human rights gives rights to criminals. I believe in human lives, and the criminals should be shot and the responsible of society and victims should have the rights. Fucking dipshit sheep shagger.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I've voted Tory, UKIP, then Tory all my life.



  So what?

  British political parties are irrelevant to America or to any other civilized nation.  Which aspect of a tyrannical shithole of a nation you support has no bearing on what an actual human being, in an actual civilize society, would support.

  Your society is shit, the principals on which your nation operates are garbage.  It's why we Americans fought so hard to become independent from you filth.  And in almost two and a half centuries, your shithole of a nation still has not advanced to where we were back then, and probably never will.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> So what?
> 
> British political parties are irrelevant to America or to any other civilized nation.  Which aspect of a tyrannical shithole of a nation you support has no bearing on what an actual human being, in an actual civilize society, would support.
> 
> Your society is shit, the principals on which your nation operates are garbage.  It's why we Americans fought so hard to become independent from you filth.  And in almost two and a half centuries, your shithole of a nation still has not advanced to where we were back then, and probably never will.


And there you go, wash, rinse, repeat. You've defaulted back to independence. The whole purpose of this thread. You have a handful of sayings at your disposal and all you can do is default to the them. And if you get an adult to help you read the thread, the adult will tell you that you are just one of the many retards that repeat the same old shit day in and day out.

Let's talk about rights. You are flying over the Atlantic and crash. You're washed up on a deserted island and you will probably be there for many years. You stand up and claim your rights.

So what are your rights and how will they pan out? Go for it retard.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wheyyy heyyyy, Rights. If there's a thousand mention on guns, Rights come up twelve point two billion times. Yes, Rights have been fucking flogged rotten. You have Rights to guns, the fucking planet knows that, aliens on distant worlds know that, and your fucking thick skull blurts out........Rights. The whole point of the thread is gun retards blurting out the same old shit about guns. And right on cue, another retard.
> 
> Boy they're flocking in, like flies to a cow turd.



The crux of the argument is that the US Constitution clearly states that to keep and bear arms is a right and is not subordinate to any other right but rather the equal of any other right.

This is the cause of the bug up your ass about US citizens owning firearms.

If you don't want to hear about our protected gun rights then don't ask about guns in the US.

So yes we have a right to own guns

In the US we do not agree that the rights of all should be diminished because of the crimes of the few

You happen to be opposed to both of those ideals


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Ok Bob Blaylock , let's talk Right v Left. I want to scrap you paying $1,000 per month on health care. I want you to have health care by raising your tax $500 per month. Does that sound good? You and every American will be better off. I'm Rightwing and favour the NHS, I'm £500 a month better off.

Let me hear your retarded brain on this.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The crux of the argument is that the US Constitution clearly states that to keep and bear arms is a right and is not subordinate to any other right but rather the equal of any other right.
> 
> This is the cause of the bug up your ass about US citizens owning firearms.
> 
> ...



  Ultimately, all that Captain Caveman has accomplished with this thread; joining Tainted Tommy as another example of a luser who has no other purpose than this, is to demonstrate very vividly why it is that we Americans kicked the British filth out of our country almost two and a half centuries ago; and to show that our reasons for having done so then remain at least as valid to this very day.

  The British filth still, after all that time, have not developed even the faintest vestige of an understanding of the essential human rights that formed the basis for America's founding as a nation, and will continue to vapidly dismiss or even condemn recognition of such rights.

  We fought two wars, specifically to establish once and for all, that British filth have no say and no standing whatsoever with regard to how we Americans run our country, that their opinions on such are less than shit.

  We should probably have stayed out of the European side of World War II. and just let the Soviets and the Nazis have Europe, especially the UK, to divide up among themselves.  What we sent our own men over there to fight and die to protect really hasn't turned out to be very much better than what we thought we were protecting it from.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Ok Bob Blaylock , let's talk Right v Left. I want to scrap you paying $1,000 per month on health care. I want you to have health care by raising your tax $500 per month. Does that sound good? You and every American will be better off. I'm Rightwing and favour the NHS, I'm £500 a month better off.
> 
> Let me hear your retarded brain on this.


You Brits have been brainwashed to trust your government.

Americans are raised with a healthy distrust of the government because the government never disappoints in its malfeasance and corruption


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The crux of the argument is that the US Constitution clearly states that to keep and bear arms is a right and is not subordinate to any other right but rather the equal of any other right.
> 
> This is the cause of the bug up your ass about US citizens owning firearms.
> 
> ...


Correct, the constitution say Rights to arms. The planet knows that because you've bashed on about it a billion times. The whole purpose of the thread is, we know, so there's no need for you mention it again.

But your brain can't cope, it's unable to talk about guns in society without going over old ground a billion times, the ground that we've been over a billion times. I'm not sure of your concentration span or IQ, but when i_ve been over something, it's resolved, it's gone in, I comprehend. Yet you constantly want to go it again and again and again...wash, rinse repeat. What is mentally up with you?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ultimately, all that Captain Caveman has accomplished with this thread; joining Tainted Tommy as another example of a luser who has no other purpose than this, is to demonstrate very vividly why it is that we Americans kicked the British filth out of our country almost two and a half centuries ago; and to show that our reasons for having done so then remain at least as valid to this very day.
> 
> The British filth still, after all that time, have not developed even the faintest vestige of an understanding of the essential human rights that formed the basis for America's founding as a nation, and will continue to vapidly dismiss or even condemn recognition of such rights.
> 
> ...


Independence, wash, rinse, repeat. Lol.

Yet again, wash, rinse, repeat. That's all you can do, you are the dumbest nation on the earth.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 28, 2022)

Time to stop feeding the troll.


----------



## hadit (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You guys do it every 5 minutes, every day, every week, every month, every year, every decade, every century. So that issue is now resolved, no need for you to ever mention that again.
> 
> I'm here to cleanse Americans of their gun troubles.


You're going to make people stop trying to take them away? How's that going to work?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You Brits have been brainwashed to trust your government.
> 
> Americans are raised with a healthy distrust of the government because the government never disappoints in its malfeasance and corruption


No, I control and lead my own life. All politicians and governments are corrupt. Where there's money, there's corruption.

Drill down what you've just said. You haven't a clue have you. Your government tells you where and when to cross a road, you follow it. We don't, we look left and right and cross, we don't need "walk" "don't walk" lights.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Time to stop feeding the troll.


Just answer my question, you are washed up on a deserted island. Please tell me what your rights are and how they will pan out?

Simple question, even for a retard.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Correct, the constitution say Rights to arms. The planet knows that because you've bashed on about it a billion times. The whole purpose of the thread is, we know, so there's no need for you mention it again.
> 
> But your brain can't cope, it's unable to talk about guns in society without going over old ground a billion times, the ground that we've been over a billion times. I'm not sure of your concentration span or IQ, but when i_ve been over something, it's resolved, it's gone in, I comprehend. Yet you constantly want to go it again and again and again...wash, rinse repeat. What is mentally up with you?


Guns in society are a neutral entity.

Guns in the hands of the citizenry do not cause murder or crime
Guns in the hands of the citizenry do not decrease murder or crime

The murder rate of the US is about what it was in 1950.

We have more guns in the hands of more people and the result is completely neutral in both crime and murder rates.

The fact is our society allows guns, your doesn't

I do not see that the US would be any different if we could magically remove all guns from society the only thing that would result in is a diminishment of freedom and choice.

You think the government must limit freedom to any extent deemed necessary for "safety" reasons

We think that freedoms should be protected and accept the risk 

Americans are and always have been risk takers


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No, I control and lead my own life. All politicians and governments are corrupt. Where there's money, there's corruption.
> 
> Drill down what you've just said. You haven't a clue have you. Your government tells you where and when to cross a road, you follow it. We don't, we look left and right and cross, we don't need "walk" "don't walk" lights.


And yet YOU want that same government to tell you you cannot own a gun and that your rights must be diminished because other people commit crimes


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Guns in society are a neutral entity.
> 
> Guns in the hands of the citizenry do not cause murder or crime
> Guns in the hands of the citizenry do not decrease murder or crime
> ...


If guns do not increase murder or crime, why is the US high up on the list of gun murder and crime? You don't have to be a NASA employee to answer this, it's not rocket science.

The number of guns is not the problem and not part of the equation, quantity is irrelevant.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And yet YOU want that same government to tell you you cannot own a gun and that your rights must be diminished because other people commit crimes


The government doesn't tell me I can't own a gun. Been over this with you nut jobs a million times. IT'S YOU personally that decides if you have a gun. If you led a life that doesn't warrant suitability for a gun, it's good for society you don't own a gun. If you have a place to shoot one and are of good character, then you can't be denied a gun. It's fucking simple, yet so fucking hard for you to understand. What is hindering your brain?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If guns do not increase murder or crime, why is the US high up on the list of gun murder and crime? You don't have to be a NASA employee to answer this, it's not rocket science.
> 
> The number of guns is not the problem and not part of the equation, quantity is irrelevant.


Gun murder is a stupid distinction

Murder is murder no matter how it is committed.

Crime is crime whether committed while in possession of a firearm or not.

The US murder rate is about the same as it was in 1950 despite there being more guns in the hands of more people

Unlike you I actually understand the US and it's make up.

I know that the vast majority of murders is committed in poverty stricken inner city neighborhoods and that poverty is caused by a plethora of historical reasons.  You don't seem to understand this.

I know that 70 -80% of all murders that take place in these hyper-violent inner city areas are young minority criminal killing other young minority criminals.  The reasons these young men choose a life of crime and violence are directly related to those same historical reasons for the generational poverty you don't understand.

The powers that be choose to do nothing about this inner city violence because young poor urban minority males  are not valued for anything other than being thrown into our prison for profit system where slavery is legal.

You don't comprehend any of this so you want the simplest of explanations and to you that is guns.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The government doesn't tell me I can't own a gun. Been over this with you nut jobs a million times. IT'S YOU personally that decides if you have a gun. If you led a life that doesn't warrant suitability for a gun, it's good for society you don't own a gun. If you have a place to shoot one and are of good character, then you can't be denied a gun. It's fucking simple, yet so fucking hard for you to understand. What is hindering your brain?


BULLSHIT

You cannot carry a concealed pistol can you?

And your government tells you which long guns you can own and you have to register them so they can take them away from you for any reason


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wheyyy heyyyy, Rights. If there's a thousand mention on guns, Rights come up twelve point two billion times. Yes, Rights have been fucking flogged rotten. You have Rights to guns, the fucking planet knows that, aliens on distant worlds know that, and your fucking thick skull blurts out........Rights. The whole point of the thread is gun retards blurting out the same old shit about guns. And right on cue, another retard.
> 
> Boy they're flocking in, like flies to a cow turd.





Our Rights flog your whiney assed opinion.

Stop sniveling and either learn the true facts about guns, or piss off.

We don't care either way.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

westwall said:


> Our Rights flog your whiney assed opinion.
> 
> Stop sniveling and either learn the true facts about guns, or piss off.
> 
> We don't care either way.


Wheyy hayyy, Rights. Been over them a billion times, you have to default to Rights. No brain capacity left.


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Ok Bob Blaylock , let's talk Right v Left. I want to scrap you paying $1,000 per month on health care. I want you to have health care by raising your tax $500 per month. Does that sound good? You and every American will be better off. I'm Rightwing and favour the NHS, I'm £500 a month better off.
> 
> Let me hear your retarded brain on this.





If you can get to see them.  The NHS is a statisticians nightmare.   Patients kept in ambulances for hours instead of being delivered to the ER.  

People in need having to wait up to 96 HOURS for an ambulance to even show up!

Sorry, mate.  But using the NHS to further your cause is a loser.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Gun murder is a stupid distinction
> 
> Murder is murder no matter how it is committed.
> 
> ...


You guys (pro American gun nuts) put crime high on the list of why you need guns. Now, if you take the time to look at crime, what constitutes as a reported crime etc.. crime involving a gun is a very small percentage. Yet, talk about guns, what does a pro American gun nut spout, come and criminals. And we can go over this a million times, then when the next thread appears on guns.......you got it.....gun nuts resort to criminals and guns.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

westwall said:


> If you can get to see them.  The NHS is a statisticians nightmare.   Patients kept in ambulances for hours instead of being delivered to the ER.
> 
> People in need having to wait up to 96 HOURS for an ambulance to even show up!
> 
> Sorry, mate.  But using the NHS to further your cause is a loser.


Here's one of you American fellows living in the UK 


Now run along pratt.


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wheyy hayyy, Rights. Been over them a billion times, you have to default to Rights. No brain capacity left.
> [/Qlost.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You guys (pro American gun nuts) put crime high on the list of why you need guns. Now, if you take the time to look at crime, what constitutes as a reported crime etc.. crime involving a gun is a very small percentage. Yet, talk about guns, what does a pro American gun nut spout, come and criminals. And we can go over this a million times, then when the next thread appears on guns.......you got it.....gun nuts resort to criminals and guns.





Your violent crime rate is higher than ours.  Your gun violence rate is skyrocketing. 

Hmm.  Gun laws don't seem to work where you are either.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

westwall said:


> Your violent crime rate is higher than ours.  Your gun violence rate is skyrocketing.
> 
> Hmm.  Gun laws don't seem to work where you are either.


Yet, we've been over this a million times, and yet you want to talk crime. Are you so thick on the subject, that your brain is so empty on crime stats after the forum posts over the years?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You guys (pro American gun nuts) put crime high on the list of why you need guns. Now, if you take the time to look at crime, what constitutes as a reported crime etc.. crime involving a gun is a very small percentage. Yet, talk about guns, what does a pro American gun nut spout, come and criminals. And we can go over this a million times, then when the next thread appears on guns.......you got it.....gun nuts resort to criminals and guns.


I don;t see my society as "high crime"

I correctly see it as having clearly defined small pockets of high crime in the midst of mostly areas of very low crime.  These small pockets that are very well defined and that everyone knows actually skew the statistics for the entire country.

Just one area of just 3 or 4 square city blocks in IL has a murder rate more than 10 times the national average.  This is one of those poverty stricken inner city areas I told you about where the powers that be ALLOW the crime rate to go unchecked.  The same sixed area just a couple miles away has a near zero murder rate and a significantly lower crime rate.

Our society is far from homogeneous and the country is very large compared to your little inbred Island

And you know as well as I do that the UK beats the US in quite a few crime stats

And FYI I never thought I needed a gun because of crime rates.

I have guns for self defense not crime prevention.

Unlike you I understand that cops cannot prevent crime but rather only react to it.  AND I also know that the police have no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone so rather than put my and my wife's safety in the hands of a government agency that has no obligation to come to my aid I own guns so I don;t have to rely on the fucking government


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Retard westwall  said (Because he can't do replies correctly)

_We have beat you senseless with facts that YOU choose to ignore. 8 percent of the criminal population commits 80 percent of the violent crime.

Only a true retard would punish the vast majority of law abiding people for the crimes of the few._

Reported crime in the UK hit 5.5 million, 6,600 involving firearms, 0.1% involving firearms. And retard Westwall is put out Brits aren't gun mad because of gun crime. I can't fix stoopid.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Retard westwall  said (Because he can't do replies correctly)
> 
> _We have beat you senseless with facts that YOU choose to ignore. 8 percent of the criminal population commits 80 percent of the violent crime.
> 
> ...


And you have more crime per capita 









						Countries Compared by Crime > Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
					

<a href=/graph-T/mil_not>Note</a>: <a href=/cat/Crime>Crime</a> statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report <a href=/cat/Crime>crime</a>, than actual prevalence. Figures expressed per thousand population for the same year.



					www.nationmaster.com


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I don;t see my society as "high crime"
> 
> I correctly see it as having clearly defined small pockets of high crime in the midst of mostly areas of very low crime.  These small pockets that are very well defined and that everyone knows actually skew the statistics for the entire country.
> 
> ...


Been over this before. It's nigh-on impossible to compare countries because farting in one country could be a crime and not in another. If you want to compare countries, try pro rata and piss in the wind. But stick to reality, in your lifetime, how many times did you experience crime, get mugged, shot at etc.. You will have more hairs on your testicles in one square millimetre than the crime you experienced. If you've experienced more, it means you live in a shit hole 3rd world country


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And you have more crime per capita
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, we get a lot of lawn mowers stolen per capita.


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Retard westwall  said (Because he can't do replies correctly)
> 
> _We have beat you senseless with facts that YOU choose to ignore. 8 percent of the criminal population commits 80 percent of the violent crime.
> 
> ...





England is THE violent crime Capitol of Europe.  It has gotten so bad that the police will report multiple crimes from the same apartment building as a single crime to keep the numbers down.

Go piss up a rope clown boi.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

westwall said:


> England is THE violent crime Capitol of Europe.  It has gotten so bad that the police will report multiple crimes from the same apartment building as a single crime to keep the numbers down.
> 
> Go piss up a rope clown boi.


Fucking lawn mowers.


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Fucking lawn mowers.





No, bricking, stabbings are through the roof, so bad that your governments solution is to ban pointy kitchen knives. 

See, it is the morons position to ban and punish the majority for the crimes of the few.

And, the solutions are invariably stupid as it takes no time all to reprofile a blade to have a tip.

But, in a world of infantile morons, what do you expect?

I am flying to Hays Kansas to visit a friend.   I will rejoin when I have to use the loo!


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Been over this before. It's nigh-on impossible to compare countries because farting in one country could be a crime and not in another. If you want to compare countries, try pro rata and piss in the wind. But stick to reality, in your lifetime, how many times did you experience crime, get mugged, shot at etc.. You will have more hairs on your testicles in one square millimetre than the crime you experienced. If you've experienced more, it means you live in a shit hole 3rd world country


If it is impossible to compare then why can you say the US is "high crime"

And I've told this story before.

I was orphaned at 14 and ended up in a shitty foster care situation.  I decided rather than make a fuss that I just wouldn't live there and I basically lived on the streets or on a friend's couch until I was 16.

I dropped out of HS at 16 when a local restaurant owner offered me a job when he saw me collecting bottles out of his recycling bins.  He said he'd seen me around and that I wasn't a trouble maker.  He became a dear friend and mentor to me and in all reality he saved my life.

I lived in one of those hyper violent inner city neighborhoods I educated you about.

Anyway one night when I was 18 I was walking home late after a double shift and I was jumped by 3 assholes.  One of them had a chain wrapped around his fist and he hit me from behind and when i went down he worked me over while his 2 toadies kicked and stomped me.

I ended up with a grade 4 concussion, a fractured eye orbital, some permanent vision impairment in y left eye, 3 broken ribs and a ruptured spleen.  The took my cash, my winter coat and my boots and left me for dead in an alley in January.

I got myself to a hospital 6 block away.  It took me over an hour and I saw 3 cops driving by in that time and they didn't bother to stop and help the beaten bloody guy walking around in his socks.  I was hypothermic by the time I got to the Emergency Room.  I could have just as easily died.



So yes unlike you I KNOW there is real violence in this world and naïve assholes like you instead of counting yourself lucky that you haven't experienced it would rather make stupid assumptions about the reasons some people want to own a gun for protection.

I happen to be grateful I live in a country that recognizes my ABSOLUTE RIGHT to protect myself with the best tool for the job.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, we get a lot of lawn mowers stolen per capita.


A lot more rapes than the US too


----------



## ... (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How Far Can An AR-15 Shoot Accurately? - Gun Goals
> 
> 
> Ever wondered how far can an AR-15 shoot accurately? While the effective shooting distance varies based on caliber here's our break down. [DETAILS]
> ...


There is true range and effective range.  The velocity is still 3200 feet or so.  The AR15 has more velocity than an AK47, which we all know was designed as combat weapon, so like the AR15, neither belongs in the hands of the general public.


----------



## ... (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> There is absolutely no difference between an AR 15 and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for a NATO 5.56 mm
> 
> NONE  ZERO  ZIP  NADA


There is: the AR15 IS an M16.


----------



## ... (Feb 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The muslim terroris in Nice, France, using a rental truck killed 86 and injured 435...you idiot...more than the guy in Las Vegas with his rifle..........


Yeah and a guy in Las Vegas used an AR15.  What's your point?


----------



## ... (Feb 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And again...the truth about the AR-15, the civilian and police rifle....
> 
> 
> *The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”*
> ...


Here;  The Creator Of The AR-15 Rifle Only Invented The Gun For One Purpose 

Read up on the facts and then get back to me.  M14 shooter got the lesson: now he's quiet...


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, bricking, stabbings are through the roof, so bad that your governments solution is to ban pointy kitchen knives.
> 
> See, it is the morons position to ban and punish the majority for the crimes of the few.
> 
> ...


70% of stabbings are between immigrants and gangs, thicko.

But there again, that has already been covered on the forum, yet you bring it back up again. So why didn't it feel resolved the first time in your 2 brain celled mind?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> If it is impossible to compare then why can you say the US is "high crime"
> 
> And I've told this story before.
> 
> ...


Listen bellend, it's called life. Your story is no different to some of my mates. If you feel a gun was the answer, you have a narrow minded brain. As Bruce Lee said, don't pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one. You and you only are in control of your life. Hunt about in bins, that's your choice, to put yourself in danger in back streets, that's your choice. Do you want me to feel concerned about you? You can fuck right off.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> A lot more rapes than the US too


Rapes in the US are over double the UK's per capita. If you're gonna quote something, at least have the fucking brains to think about it first. What a fucking clown.






						Rape statistics - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 28, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Yeah and a guy in Las Vegas used an AR15.  What's your point?




A guy with a truck killed more people than the guy in Vegas with a rifle........knives kill more people every single year than rifles do....clubs kill more people every single year than rifles do......hands and feet kill more people every single year than rifles do....

According to your logic....trucks, knives, clubs, and hands and feet need to be banned and confiscated.........


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 28, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Here;  The Creator Of The AR-15 Rifle Only Invented The Gun For One Purpose
> 
> Read up on the facts and then get back to me.  M14 shooter got the lesson: now he's quiet..






> *“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. *






> *It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”*




Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> 70% of stabbings are between immigrants and gangs, thicko.
> 
> But there again, that has already been covered on the forum, yet you bring it back up again. So why didn't it feel resolved the first time in your 2 brain celled mind?




70-80% of gun murders  in the U.S are between gangs and other criminals.....and of the rest, the victims are the friends and family of those criminals hit in the crossfire...

You moron....

Meanwhile....1.1 million Americans use their legal guns to stop rapes, robberies, beatings, stabbings and murders....

Can you tell which number is bigger....?

Over the last 27 years,  up to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

1) the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders...they have created a revolving door for criminals who use guns, and will release even the most serious gun offenders over and over again....why?   Probably because they realise that normal people don't use their guns for crime, so if they want to push gun control, they need criminals to shoot people.....so they keep releasing them....

2)  The democrat party keeps attacking the police.....driving the officers into not doing pro-active policing, cutting detective forces so that murders go unsolved..........


----------



## Vagabond63 (Feb 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And you have more crime per capita
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Erm, from your link "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than *actual prevalence*."


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 28, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Erm, from your link "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than *actual prevalence*."




And the British police are lying about their crime stats, and not helping rape victims....


----------



## Vagabond63 (Feb 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> 70-80% of gun murders  in the U.S are between gangs and other criminals.....and of the rest, the victims are the friends and family of those criminals hit in the crossfire...
> 
> You moron....
> 
> ...


Blah, blah, BS firehose of falsehood again.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Feb 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And the British police are lying about their crime stats, and not helping rape victims....


Of course they are...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The whole point of the thread is gun retards blurting out the same old shit about guns. And right on cue, another retard.


The point you refuse to address:
If those who continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners ceased their efforts to that end, there'd be little to no talk about guns.
So, your question, more relevantly asked:
Why do Democrats/leftists/liberals continue to seek unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of law abiding gun owners?


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> 70% of stabbings are between immigrants and gangs, thicko.
> 
> But there again, that has already been covered on the forum, yet you bring it back up again. So why didn't it feel resolved the first time in your 2 brain celled mind?




90% of our violent crime is illegals, and gangs, dumbass.


----------



## westwall (Feb 28, 2022)

jet57 said:


> There is true range and effective range.  The velocity is still 3200 feet or so.  The AR15 has more velocity than an AK47, which we all know was designed as combat weapon, so like the AR15, neither belongs in the hands of the general public.




Small, lightweight bullet sheds velocity faster.  I could go into detail but you wouldn't understand


----------



## Meister (Feb 28, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Rapes in the US are over double the UK's per capita. If you're gonna quote something, at least have the fucking brains to think about it first. What a fucking clown.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you want to keep this upstairs, or take it to the basement?
Seems most posters want a serious discussion, you on the other hand want to 
flame posters with a different view.  It's your thread, your choice, the ball is in your court.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> There is true range and effective range.  The velocity is still 3200 feet or so.  The AR15 has more velocity than an AK47, which we all know was designed as combat weapon, so like the AR15, neither belongs in the hands of the general public.


So what?

An AR 15 is no different than any other rifle chambered for a NATO 5.56 mm round

ANd FYI combat rifles are not the same as the commonplace semiautomatic rifle that has been available to the public for over a century


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> There is: the AR15 IS an M16.


No it isn't

The M 16 is capable of both select and automatic fire

And what about rifles that aren't AR 15s and fire the same round?

Like this one


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Listen bellend, it's called life. Your story is no different to some of my mates. If you feel a gun was the answer, you have a narrow minded brain. As Bruce Lee said, don't pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one. You and you only are in control of your life. Hunt about in bins, that's your choice, to put yourself in danger in back streets, that's your choice. Do you want me to feel concerned about you? You can fuck right off.



And you waiting for the fucking cops to save your life is naive to the point of mental retardation.

And I was 14 and basically homeless so you really don;t know shit about it do you?  I didn't choose to have a junkie for a mother or for her to OD,  I didn't choose to get stuck in a foster home with an abusive asshole who knew how not to leave bruises.

And I guess you missed the part that I said I was 18 and walking home after a double shift when I got jumped.

And I survived, I made it out and I learned a lot of lessons you will never understand

So until you spend a few weeks living rough on the streets and the only thing you eat in a couple days is something you could shoplift or buy with the change you can get from turning in some bottles for the deposit you can shove your judgements of me and my choices right up your fat fucking ass.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Erm, from your link "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than *actual prevalence*."



It's the best metric we have since there is no way to know how many crimes aren't reported


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Rapes in the US are over double the UK's per capita. If you're gonna quote something, at least have the fucking brains to think about it first. What a fucking clown.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope If anything they are about equal





__





						Rape Statistics by Country 2022
					





					worldpopulationreview.com


----------



## ... (Mar 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So what?
> 
> An AR 15 is no different than any other rifle chambered for a NATO 5.56 mm round
> 
> ANd FYI combat rifles are not the same as the commonplace semiautomatic rifle that has been available to the public for over a century


The AR has more velocity than the Winchester model 70.  The AR15 IS different: it was designed as a field rifle for the US military. The M16 that looks more like an AR10 was the finished product with the same firepower as the AR15. The design was sold after the military dumped the design. With a velocity of 3200 fps and firing 30 rounds as fast as you pull the trigger, it is no wonder that the AR15 (and those with the same capacity) is the choice of mass murderers.
So take your AR15 and go to Ukraine; you’ll fit right in.


----------



## ... (Mar 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No it isn't
> 
> The M 16 is capable of both select and automatic fire
> 
> ...


The M14 is not a bush gun either.  If you remove the full auto select you still have an M16, so nice try.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR has more velocity than the Winchester model 70.  The AR15 IS different: it was designed as a field rifle for the US military. The M16 that looks more like an AR10 was the finished product with the same firepower as the AR15. The design was sold after the military dumped the design. With a velocity of 3200 fps and firing 30 rounds as fast as you pull the trigger, it is no wonder that the AR15 (and those with the same capacity) is the choice of mass murderers.
> So take your AR15 and go to Ukraine; you’ll fit right in.


The Winchester 70 doesn't fire a 5.56 NATO round but rather the less powerful .223. The .223 produces lower barrel pressures so of course the round is slower

And FYI rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders 

AR 15 rifles account for just a fraction of that 2%

In fact more people are beaten to death every year by people using nothing but their bare hands than are killed with AR 15s.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The M14 is not a bush gun either.  If you remove the full auto select you still have an M16, so nice try.



The AR 15 is nothing like an M 16 in any way other than looks

ANY rifle that fires a 5.56 NATO round can do what an AR 15 does.

So which do you want to ban?  Just the AR 15 or every rifle that can fire the 5.56 NATO?


----------



## ... (Mar 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The Winchester 70 doesn't fire a 5.56 NATO round but rather the less powerful .223. The .223 produces lower barrel pressures so of course the round is slower
> 
> And FYI rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders
> 
> ...


Avoiding facts again.
What rifle was used by the Las Vegas mass murderer?


----------



## ... (Mar 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The AR 15 is nothing like an M 16 in any way other than looks
> 
> ANY rifle that fires a 5.56 NATO round can do what an AR 15 does.
> 
> So which do you want to ban?  Just the AR 15 or every rifle that can fire the 5.56 NATO?


The ones that were banned in 1994 need to be banned again. Your silly nit-picking carries no weight against the public danger of combat designed weaponry in our streets.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The AR has more velocity than the Winchester model 70.  The AR15 IS different: it was designed as a field rifle for the US military. The M16 that looks more like an AR10 was the finished product with the same firepower as the AR15. The design was sold after the military dumped the design. With a velocity of 3200 fps and firing 30 rounds as fast as you pull the trigger, it is no wonder that the AR15 (and those with the same capacity) is the choice of mass murderers.
> So take your AR15 and go to Ukraine; you’ll fit right in.




You are an idiot...the AR-15 is not the weapon of choice....the weapon of choice is the handgun...you idiot......you make things up, and you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The ones that were banned in 1994 need to be banned again. Your silly nit-picking carries no weight against the public danger of combat designed weaponry in our streets.




Then knives, clubs, rental trucks....they need to be banned too....since knives and clubs kill more people every single year than all rifles do, let alone AR-15s....and rental trucks, one of which was used to murder more people than any mass public shooting in the U.S....need to be banned too...

You idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Avoiding facts again.
> What rifle was used by the Las Vegas mass murderer?




He should have used his private plane or a rental Truck...

He killed 61 with his rifle.....the muslim terrorist in Nice, France, using a rental truck, killed 86 and wounded 435.....more killed than in any mass public shooting in the U.S......

Ban rental trucks..they are more dangerous than rifles.


----------



## ... (Mar 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot...the AR-15 is not the weapon of choice....the weapon of choice is the handgun...you idiot......you make things up, and you have no idea what you are talking about.


Throughout this thread I have credibly sourced and demonstrated that you AR15 gun thugs don’t have any idea what you’re talking about so I will ask you a question;
 if you can’t answer then don’t reply at all…

Which signers of the second amendment were certified firearms experts?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Throughout this thread I have credibly sourced and demonstrated that you AR15 gun thugs don’t have any idea what you’re talking about so I will ask you a question;
> if you can’t answer then don’t reply at all…
> 
> Which signers of the second amendment were certified firearms experts?




You have been called out on every post because you don't know what you are talking about......and just now you said the AR-15 is the most popular gun for mass public shooters....and that is wrong.


----------



## ... (Mar 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You have been called out on every post because you don't know what you are talking about......and just now you said the AR-15 is the most popular gun for mass public shooters....and that is wrong.


Not a'one of you guys has credibly refuted anything I've said on the subject.  All you offer is litmus tests.  Having said that, of course you can't name any of the signers of the second amendment were certified firearms experts, so your arguments are further discredited.

You guys have no competent arguments against me.

/


----------



## miketx (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Which signers of the second amendment were certified firearms experts?


All of them. They kept and bore arms routinely.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Not a'one of you guys has credibly refuted anything I've said on the subject.  All you offer is litmus tests.  Having said that, of course you can't name any of the signers of the second amendment were certified firearms experts, so your arguments are further discredited.
> 
> You guys have no competent arguments against me.
> 
> /




Wow....you are sooooo cool.......does your image in your mirror tell you the same thing?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Avoiding facts again.
> What rifle was used by the Las Vegas mass murderer?


You obviously don't know shit about rifles

And who the fuck cares what rifle a killer used?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Avoiding facts again.
> What rifle was used by the Las Vegas mass murderer?


I actually gave you facts.

You like the fucking moron you are want to compare two entirely different rifles firing 2 different rounds because you obviously don;t understand what the fuck you're talking about


----------



## miketx (Mar 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You obviously don't know shit about rifles
> 
> And who the fuck cares what rifle a killer used?


Leftard faggots care.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The ones that were banned in 1994 need to be banned again. Your silly nit-picking carries no weight against the public danger of combat designed weaponry in our streets.


You're just displaying your ignorance once again

The 94 AWB criteria were solely cosmetic and had nothing to do with the rifle being semiautomatic or what round it fired


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 1, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wheyyy heyyyy, Rights. If there's a thousand mention on guns, Rights come up twelve point two billion times. Yes, Rights have been fucking flogged rotten. You have Rights to guns, the fucking planet knows that, aliens on distant worlds know that, and your fucking thick skull blurts out........Rights. The whole point of the thread is gun retards blurting out the same old shit about guns. And right on cue, another retard.
> 
> Boy they're flocking in, like flies to a cow turd.


it's a right that cannot be restricted by the very people who would try to disarm citizens 
COMMUNIST PIGS LIKE YOU.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 1, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> And there you go, wash, rinse, repeat. You've defaulted back to independence. The whole purpose of this thread. You have a handful of sayings at your disposal and all you can do is default to the them. And if you get an adult to help you read the thread, the adult will tell you that you are just one of the many retards that repeat the same old shit day in and day out.
> 
> Let's talk about rights. You are flying over the Atlantic and crash. You're washed up on a deserted island and you will probably be there for many years. You stand up and claim your rights.
> 
> So what are your rights and how will they pan out? Go for it retard.


British thoughts and opinions of American politics is irrelevant to Most Americans


----------



## Dadoalex (Mar 1, 2022)

task0778 said:


> The democrats made gun control a political issue, pretty much like everything else.  That's why we talk about guns.


THAT is a level of ignorance about recent US history that is just stunning.

Perhaps you should look at the 1994 elections
Perhaps you should follow the history of the NRA

Perhaps, just educate yourself.


----------



## Dadoalex (Mar 1, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> If the government or some other agency would kindly publish an annual report detailing each gun death event (as I have suggested for many years) America could sleep better knowing that the gun violence problem has been greatly exaggerated.
> 
> We won the Revolutionary War with guns. Franklin tacitly suggested that we should defend it with guns as well. Good advice. As a Christian I don't wish to take a life. However, the "goodman who didn't suffer his house to be broken up' likely had permission to use deadly force if necessary.


Not allowed.
Gunners made sure of that.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

westwall said:


> 90% of our violent crime is illegals, and gangs, dumbass.


Yes, 70% between themselves. Is this tricky?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

Meister I was surprised you used stats where the person thought the gun saved their life. I mean, it's not as if bias could creep into things especially asking pro gunners

So what you need to do is work out how to make the US gun problem safer. Rather than defaulting to the usual rhetoric that we've been over a billion times, you need to address and talk about gun security, which nutters are a risk and shouldn't have them, walking down streets with guns is mindless, a civilised society doesn't need to roam around with assault rifles etc.. And it has be a cultural change to take it seriously. That way, enjoy guns and vastly reduce deaths.

But gun nuts CAN'T and they DON'T WANT TO, so they deflect every gun conversation to the list I provided. It's the paragraph above that needs addressed, not deflecting with the same old crap.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Meister I was surprised you used stats where the person thought the gun saved their life. I mean, it's not as if bias could creep into things especially asking pro gunners
> 
> So what you need to do is work out how to make the US gun problem safer. Rather than defaulting to the usual rhetoric that we've been over a billion times, you need to address and talk about gun security, which nutters are a risk and shouldn't have them, walking down streets with guns is mindless, a civilised society doesn't need to roam around with assault rifles etc.. And it has be a cultural change to take it seriously. That way, enjoy guns and vastly reduce deaths.
> 
> But gun nuts CAN'T and they DON'T WANT TO, so they deflect every gun conversation to the list I provided. It's the paragraph above that needs addressed, not deflecting with the same old crap.


We don;t have a gun problem.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We don;t have a gun problem.


You do, because you feel the need to have them in the high street. A quarter of robberies from commercial properties are by gun.





Graph per capita.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You do, because you feel the need to have them in the high street. A quarter of robberies from commercial properties are by gun.
> 
> View attachment 609549
> Graph per capita.


We don't have a gun problem

Guns do not cause crime

And suicide doesn't count as there is absolutely no evidence that if people can't use a gun that they won't commit suicide in any of a thousand other ways

Suicide is a choice but we see that you don't like it when people have choices


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We don't have a gun problem
> 
> Guns do not cause crime
> 
> ...


Every country and every person has problems. A problem is something from the ideal. So if you look forward to a Friday and dread Monday, you have a problem, you're in the wrong job. If society suffer deaths from knives, drugs, guns etc.. then there's a knife, drug, gun etc.. problem.

Road traffic accidents are a problem, even if one death, so safety regulations, laws and speed limits, traffic calming measures constantly change. Always striving to the ideal, no deaths, but would never happen so you strive to reduce them.

The first part of anything, accepting you have a problem. Our gun problem here is fifty odd deaths per year and once every 20 to 30 years, a mass shooting happens. But the government strive to reduce it and we still enjoy guns.

You avoid gun deaths as being a problem because it's against your gun agenda.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Every country and every person has problems. A problem is something from the ideal. So if you look forward to a Friday and dread Monday, you have a problem, you're in the wrong job. If society suffer deaths from knives, drugs, guns etc.. then there's a knife, drug, gun etc.. problem.
> 
> Road traffic accidents are a problem, even if one death, so safety regulations, laws and speed limits, traffic calming measures constantly change. Always striving to the ideal, no deaths, but would never happen so you strive to reduce them.
> 
> ...



Guns are not the problem.  

The problem is that our government doesn't enforce the gun laws we have on the books.  Gun charges are usually the first to be dropped in any plea deal

All instances of the illegal possession of a firearm can be prosecuted as a federal crime but they aren't.  The government actually wants our crime rates to stay high just as it wants poor inner city minorities to keep killing each other because it feeds the for profit prison industry


This is not the fault of the 99.999% of people that own guns legally and will never commit any crime with them.

But you go ahead and stick to your idiotic simplistic view that an inanimate object is the source of crime if that's all you can comprehend


----------



## Woodznutz (Mar 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We don't have a gun problem
> 
> Guns do not cause crime
> 
> ...



True. The use of a gun indicates the determination of the person to end his or her life, as opposed to the common "cry for help" associated with attempts by other less effective means.


----------



## Woodznutz (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Every country and every person has problems. A problem is something from the ideal. So if you look forward to a Friday and dread Monday, you have a problem, you're in the wrong job. If society suffer deaths from knives, drugs, guns etc.. then there's a knife, drug, gun etc.. problem.
> 
> Road traffic accidents are a problem, even if one death, so safety regulations, laws and speed limits, traffic calming measures constantly change. Always striving to the ideal, no deaths, but would never happen so you strive to reduce them.
> 
> ...


"I have no problem with shootings as long as the right people get shot." -Dirty Harry, from "Magnum Force".

In America many of those getting shot are the 'right people'.


----------



## Meister (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Meister I was surprised you used stats where the person thought the gun saved their life. I mean, it's not as if bias could creep into things especially asking pro gunners
> 
> So what you need to do is work out how to make the US gun problem safer. Rather than defaulting to the usual rhetoric that we've been over a billion times, you need to address and talk about gun security, which nutters are a risk and shouldn't have them, walking down streets with guns is mindless, a civilised society doesn't need to roam around with assault rifles etc.. And it has be a cultural change to take it seriously. That way, enjoy guns and vastly reduce deaths.
> 
> But gun nuts CAN'T and they DON'T WANT TO, so they deflect every gun conversation to the list I provided. It's the paragraph above that needs addressed, not deflecting with the same old crap.


What gun problem?


----------



## westwall (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, 70% between themselves. Is this tricky?





Seems to be for you.  You demand that tens of millions be denied their fun because of the criminal actions of less than 800,000.

That's stupid.


----------



## Woodznutz (Mar 2, 2022)

Meister said:


> What gun problem?


Guns (shootings) are often _the solution_ to problems.

Cops shooting crooks.
Citizens shooting crooks.
Crooks shooting crooks.
Suicides by the hopeless.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You do, because you feel the need to have them in the high street. A quarter of robberies from commercial properties are by gun.
> 
> View attachment 609549
> Graph per capita.



You forgot to add the 15 million innocent men, women and children murdered by the governments of Europe between 1939-1945......if you divide that number by 83 years...the years between 1939 and 2020....you get 180,722 innocent men, women and children murdered.....more people murdered than any year of criminals in the U.S. murdering other criminals ........

It was in fact over only 6 years.....which shows you how insane it is to take guns away from citizens and only allow the government to have guns.......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Every country and every person has problems. A problem is something from the ideal. So if you look forward to a Friday and dread Monday, you have a problem, you're in the wrong job. If society suffer deaths from knives, drugs, guns etc.. then there's a knife, drug, gun etc.. problem.
> 
> Road traffic accidents are a problem, even if one death, so safety regulations, laws and speed limits, traffic calming measures constantly change. Always striving to the ideal, no deaths, but would never happen so you strive to reduce them.
> 
> ...




Guns are flooding Britain....that is what your police tell us.......so you have been living off the outcome of World War 2 and now your welfare state and immigration policies are creating criminals who will use guns to protect their drug turf......

And you sit across the continent...where the governments of Europe allowed 15 million innocent men, women and children to be murdered by the socialists and their quislings.......

15 million murdered in 6 years....

And you are the idiot who thinks it is a good idea to take guns away from people?

You really are stupid....


----------



## Mr Natural (Mar 2, 2022)

are!',.-/:;()$&@"109


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

Meister said:


> What gun problem?


People shooting each other. Kids shooting each other. School children blasted away. Mass killings, killing from hotel windows, unhappy employees blasting colleagues away, mass shootings, a quarter of commercial property robberies by guns, etc.. etc.. Putting your fingers in your ears saying, ner, ner, ner, ner doesn't work. But we all know it's a ploy, play dumb to avoid the topic.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Guns are flooding Britain....that is what your police tell us.......so you have been living off the outcome of World War 2 and now your welfare state and immigration policies are creating criminals who will use guns to protect their drug turf......
> 
> And you sit across the continent...where the governments of Europe allowed 15 million innocent men, women and children to be murdered by the socialists and their quislings.......
> 
> ...


How do you think you could lower gun deaths in America. How do you think you could lower the types of gun models and increase gun security in America?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You forgot to add the 15 million innocent men, women and children murdered by the governments of Europe between 1939-1945......if you divide that number by 83 years...the years between 1939 and 2020....you get 180,722 innocent men, women and children murdered.....more people murdered than any year of criminals in the U.S. murdering other criminals ........
> 
> It was in fact over only 6 years.....which shows you how insane it is to take guns away from citizens and only allow the government to have guns.......


How could you lower commercial property gun robbery in America? How could you restrict the accessibility of guns into the wrong hands?


----------



## Meister (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> People shooting each other. Kids shooting each other. School children blasted away. Mass killings, killing from hotel windows, unhappy employees blasting colleagues away, mass shootings, a quarter of commercial property robberies by guns, etc.. etc.. Putting your fingers in your ears saying, ner, ner, ner, ner doesn't work. But we all know it's a ploy, play dumb to avoid the topic.


You can deny whatever you want foreigner, you don't count.
Guns save lives....period


----------



## Meister (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You do, because you feel the need to have them in the high street. A quarter of robberies from commercial properties are by gun.
> 
> View attachment 609549
> Graph per capita.


Hmmmm, homicide probably includes those who were saved by the use of their guns towards a perp.
LE with legal use of discharging their weapons at perps.

It's not as crystal clear as you would think.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

Meister said:


> You can deny whatever your want foreigner, you don't count.
> Guns save lives....period


How do you think America could improve gun security and security? Which models of guns are deemed unsuitable in society?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

Meister said:


> Hmmmm, homicide probably includes those who were saved by the use of their guns towards a perp.
> LE with legal use of discharging their weapons at perps.
> 
> It's not as crystal clear as you would think.


Buy back programmes would help. How would you change the culture to remove them off streets?

(You will have noticed I've moved away from pro gun rhetoric and looking at the problem. You will find this alien to you).


----------



## Meister (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> How do you think America could improve gun security and security? Which models of guns are deemed unsuitable in society?


By not letting the perps plea their case down in court from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Bazzoka's, I will go with that one


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 2, 2022)

Meister said:


> By not letting the perps plea their case down in court from a felony to a misdemeanor.
> 
> Bazzoka's, I will go with that one


You need to remove assault rifles and hand guns off the streets. They need to be larger in size to discourage concealment. Meaningful and robust background checks need to be made, obviously your current system doesn't work.


----------



## Meister (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Buy back programmes would help. How would you change the culture to remove them off streets?
> 
> (You will have noticed I've moved away from pro gun rhetoric and looking at the problem. You will find this alien to you).


Buy back programs?   
Remove them off the streets?  That is a vague statement.
The guns aren't the problem, the criminal is the problem.
Remove the criminal off the street by prosecuting them for the crime without any plea deals.


----------



## Meister (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You need to remove assault rifles and hand guns off the streets. They need to be larger in size to discourage concealment. Meaningful and robust background checks need to be made, obviously your current system doesn't work.


Don't tell me what we need to remove.  You have no say in it, none whatsoever.
We have background checks, dude.  Don't let the media lie to you.

Your whole premise is as fucked up as you are.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> People shooting each other. Kids shooting each other. School children blasted away. Mass killings, killing from hotel windows, unhappy employees blasting colleagues away, mass shootings, a quarter of commercial property robberies by guns, etc.. etc.. Putting your fingers in your ears saying, ner, ner, ner, ner doesn't work. But we all know it's a ploy, play dumb to avoid the topic.




There were 6 mass public shootings in 2020, total killed 73...

Deer killed 200 people
Ladders killed 300
Lawn mowers between 90-100 people...

The rest of the shootings were majority criminals murdering other criminals.....and of the rest of the victims, they were the friends and family of criminals hit when their friend or family member criminal was being shot at...

Normal Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, beating and stabbings....according to the Centers for Disease control..

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Meanwhile.....you Europeans murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children in 6 years...after you told them they would be safer if they gave up their guns....

The Ukrainians should have learned that lesson after you leftists murdered them under Stalin...they didn't, now they are getting the lesson again with Putin.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> How do you think America could improve gun security and security? Which models of guns are deemed unsuitable in society?




That's easy...

1) vote out every democrat
2) keep violent gun criminals locked up in jail...they are the ones who keep shooting people after the democrats let them out of jail, over and over again.
3) increase the number of police in democrat party controlled cities, after you vote out all the democrats who attacked the police and made them stop doing their jobs...

And our gun crime rate would drop by about 95%....


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Mar 2, 2022)

Meister said:


> Hmmmm, homicide probably includes those who were saved by the use of their guns towards a perp.
> LE with legal use of discharging their weapons at perps.
> 
> It's not as crystal clear as you would think.



  Perhaps it is to those who value the lives of criminals at least equally to the lives of actual human beings.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> How could you lower commercial property gun robbery in America? How could you restrict the accessibility of guns into the wrong hands?




1) By locking up criminals who steal guns for about 30 years.......

Here is my overall plan to reduce gun violence in the U.S.....first, vote out every democrat...then...

Also...notice, that my plan targets actual criminals, and doesn't require any new gun control laws.....we simply use the 300,000 or so gun laws we already have...

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a gun in a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch.... 

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..


----------



## westwall (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> How do you think you could lower gun deaths in America. How do you think you could lower the types of gun models and increase gun security in America?







It's easy to lower gun deaths in the USA.  Lock up the 8% of the violent offenders and throw away the key.  The violent crime rate INSTANTLY drops by 80%.

DUUURRRRRRRRRRRR


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You need to remove assault rifles and hand guns off the streets. They need to be larger in size to discourage concealment. Meaningful and robust background checks need to be made, obviously your current system doesn't work.



Knives kill more people than all rifles in the US…do we need to get them off the street too?

Clubs kill more people tha all rifles in the US….do we need to get them off the street too?

I think right now the Ukrainians would disagree with you as their rifles are are needed to kill Russians


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You need to remove assault rifles and hand guns off the streets. They need to be larger in size to discourage concealment. Meaningful and robust background checks need to be made, obviously your current system doesn't work.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 3, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You need to remove assault rifles and hand guns off the streets. They need to be larger in size to discourage concealment. Meaningful and robust background checks need to be made, obviously your current system doesn't work.


Never gonna happen.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 3, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


I'm obsessed with my Constitutional right.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 3, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Lot of troubled kids out there
> 
> Thankfully nothing to stop them from obtaining the weapon of their choice


Criminals being criminals.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 3, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You need to remove assault rifles and hand guns off the streets. They need to be larger in size to discourage concealment. Meaningful and robust background checks need to be made, obviously your current system doesn't work.



The current system works fine.
Most of the guns used in crimes are obtained illegal, just like illegal drugs are easy to obtain.


----------



## ... (Mar 4, 2022)

miketx said:


> All of them. They kept and bore arms routinely.


You have no idea what you're talking about dude.

Show us the certification cards; ga'head.


----------



## miketx (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about dude.
> 
> Show us the certification cards; ga'head.


And you're a lying sack of shit! Lol lsos says they didn't carry guns back then. Come take mine filth!


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Not a'one of you guys has credibly refuted anything I've said on the subject.  All you offer is litmus tests.  Having said that, of course you can't name any of the signers of the second amendment were certified firearms experts, so your arguments are further discredited.
> 
> You guys have no competent arguments against me.



That is silly because there is no such thing as a "certified gun expert".
Back then everyone had to be a gun expert because they had to use guns to survive.
There were not supermarkets, police, etc.
And they had to know what they were doing because they have to properly load and prime their own shots.
All the signers of the politicians who ratified the Constitution had to be firearms experts because everyone had to be back then.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about dude.
> 
> Show us the certification cards; ga'head.



That is silly because there is no such thing as a "certification card".
The fact one survived back then certified they were firearm experts.
Those who were not, could not have survived.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You do, because you feel the need to have them in the high street. A quarter of robberies from commercial properties are by gun.
> 
> View attachment 609549
> Graph per capita.



Irrelevant.
If you look at the stats, there was also a huge spike in gun related deaths during Prohibition as well.
Nothing to do with gun laws, but entirely due to Prohibition, which is identical to the War on Drugs.


----------



## ... (Mar 4, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly because there is no such thing as a "certification card".
> The fact one survived back then certified they were firearm experts.
> Those who were not, could not have survived.


You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

The signers and argues of our second amendment were talking about the crown vs a free society, that’s why the standing army was all but disbanded.

Read some more; get a grip on real history and then get back to me.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> How do you think America could improve gun security and security? Which models of guns are deemed unsuitable in society?



No model of gun is unsuitable for society.
But pistols are the most easily concealed, so used for over 95% of the crimes.


----------



## ... (Mar 4, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> No model of gun is unsuitable for society.
> But pistols are the most easily concealed, so used for over 95% of the crimes.


Avoid avoid avoid and then lie about it.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Buy back programmes would help. How would you change the culture to remove them off streets?
> 
> (You will have noticed I've moved away from pro gun rhetoric and looking at the problem. You will find this alien to you).



Wrong.
The main threat is not from individual criminals, but the organized ones who take over whole governments and make dictatorships, so it is essential the population always remain armed.
The problem of crime is not from the tools used but instead from the injustice, poverty, lack of opportunity, etc., a corrupt society forces upon people.
When we had a frontier with more opportunity, there was way less crime, but way more guns (per capita).


----------



## miketx (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
> 
> The signers and argues of our second amendment were talking about the crown vs a free society, that’s why the standing army was all but disbanded.
> 
> Read some more; get a grip on real history and then get back to me.


Only one here that don't know what they are talking about is you, ya lying bastard.


----------



## miketx (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Avoid avoid avoid and then lie about it.


That's what you leftist vermin do 24/7.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
> 
> The signers and argues of our second amendment were talking about the crown vs a free society, that’s why the standing army was all but disbanded.
> 
> Read some more; get a grip on real history and then get back to me.



So what if our founding constitution ratifiers were concerned with preventing a corrupt dictatorship like the crown?
We should still be as well.
All government is always corrupt inherently, and always get more corrupt over time.
That is why the standing army should REMAIN DISBANDED and we should instead be relying entirely on citizen soldiers.

If you claim the current US government is not horribly corrupt already, then how come there are federal firearm laws, when clearly the 2nd amendment says there should be NONE?  How come we have a federal War on Drugs, when the constitution authorized no such thing.  In fact, the FDA, CDC, BATF, and most of the federal government has no legal authorization.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 4, 2022)

Meister said:


> Buy back programs?
> Remove them off the streets?  That is a vague statement.
> The guns aren't the problem, the criminal is the problem.
> Remove the criminal off the street by prosecuting them for the crime without any plea deals.


The person using the gun is the problem.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 4, 2022)

Meister said:


> Don't tell me what we need to remove.  You have no say in it, none whatsoever.
> We have background checks, dude.  Don't let the media lie to you.
> 
> Your whole premise is as fucked up as you are.


Blatantly, your background checks are done tongue in cheek.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...



You know what's great about this conversation?

We don't have to explain anything to you. 

The Constitution sees to that.

Now, off with you...


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 4, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> You know what's great about this conversation?
> 
> We don't have to explain anything to you.
> 
> ...


Wash, rinse, repeat. Thank you for the usual shit post, hence this thread


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The person using the gun is the problem.



That is true, but you can never stop the criminal from getting the gun because he already intends to break the law, so one more, to get the gun, won't stop them.
The only one gun laws effect are the honest people, who should be armed to they can resist the criminals.
Police do not help.
Not only are they always way too late, but the police ultimately are the worst threat to our freedom.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The person using the gun is the problem.


That's what I said, the criminal is the problem.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Blatantly, your background checks are done tongue in cheek.



The FBI conducts the background checks, so the problem is far too many legal people end up being denied.
No one who should be restricted ever gets though the background check.
I have been denied several times, and had to work through a long appeals process to finally be approved.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Blatantly, your background checks are done tongue in cheek.


Criminals usually get their weapons illegally.
So the background check does not apply to them.
99.99 percent of the guns go through the process
as it should by law

You're not too bright, and can't see beyond your nose.  too bad


----------



## PinktheFloyd88 (Mar 4, 2022)

Meister said:


> Criminals usually get their weapons illegally.
> So the background check does not apply to them.
> 99.99 percent of the guns go through the process
> as it should by law
> ...



Criminals who did not get guns illegally:

Sandy Hook killer (shot his mother in the face then took her guns)
Las Vegas killer (Walked into the hotel day-by-day with new guns in his sack, bought ammo in Arizona gun show) - **BONUS** KILLED OVER 80 PEOPLE
Pulse Night Club killer
Kyle Rittenhouse (Not guilty, but still killed 2 - bought using COVID payment money)

Do I really need to go on? Hundreds of families and people devastated by "legal" guns.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 4, 2022)

Meister said:


> That's what I said, the criminal is the problem.


No, not the criminal, the person.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 4, 2022)

Meister said:


> Criminals usually get their weapons illegally.
> So the background check does not apply to them.
> 99.99 percent of the guns go through the process
> as it should by law
> ...


Criminals account for 0.1% of incidents, you need to get that out of your system. It's a deflection tactic because you know American's guns are fucked up.


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Not a'one of you guys has credibly refuted anything I've said on the subject.  All you offer is litmus tests.  Having said that, of course you can't name any of the signers of the second amendment were certified firearms experts, so your arguments are further discredited.
> 
> You guys have no competent arguments against me.
> 
> /





Actually, it's the other way around.  You have made zero points.  You quite literally know nothing of what you are speaking.


----------



## miketx (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Avoiding facts again.
> What rifle was used by the Las Vegas mass murderer?


Who knows what rifle was used, the media lies all the time like you do.


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No, not the criminal, the person.






Are criminals not persons?


----------



## miketx (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Not a'one of you guys has credibly refuted anything I've said on the subject.  All you offer is litmus tests.  Having said that, of course you can't name any of the signers of the second amendment were certified firearms experts, so your arguments are further discredited.
> 
> You guys have no competent arguments against me.
> 
> /


Shit stains like you don't accept the truth.


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Avoiding facts again.
> What rifle was used by the Las Vegas mass murderer?






Who cares.  He was a former IRS agent.  The kind you people think should be the only ones with guns.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Criminals account for 0.1% of incidents, you need to get that out of your system. It's a deflection tactic because you know American's guns are fucked up.


You really aren't very good at this, you are just wrong and are too dense to realize it.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No, not the criminal, the person.


They are not mutually exclusive, son.
A person is a criminal.  Not all persons are criminals, like what you're inferring.


----------



## Meister (Mar 4, 2022)

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Criminals who did not get guns illegally:
> 
> Sandy Hook killer (shot his mother in the face then took her guns)
> Las Vegas killer (Walked into the hotel day-by-day with new guns in his sack, bought ammo in Arizona gun show) - **BONUS** KILLED OVER 80 PEOPLE
> ...


Sandy Hook killer shot his mother and took her gun, and you call that legal?????   
Kyle Rittenhouse's life  was saved by his weapon.

I've noticed you cherry picked  a couple of examples. 
I said, "Criminals usually get their weapons illegally."
I stand by that statement and it is true.  So, go pound sand


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 4, 2022)

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Criminals who did not get guns illegally:
> 
> Sandy Hook killer (shot his mother in the face then took her guns)
> Las Vegas killer (Walked into the hotel day-by-day with new guns in his sack, bought ammo in Arizona gun show) - **BONUS** KILLED OVER 80 PEOPLE
> ...



Dipshit…….the Sandy Hook shooter stole the guns from his mother, after murdering her….you idiot

The Las Vegas killer killed 61 people….the Muslim terrorist in Nice, France killed 86 amd wounded 435 with a rental truck…….more people killed with a rental truck than in any mass public shooting in the U.S.

The pulse night club killer passed a complete background check for his security job, a background check for each weapon he bought, and the FBI did a complete background check, including 3 interviews and an under cover approach…..and passed all of it…..the Feds failed

Kyle, you shithead, didn’t murder anyone….he shot 3 criminals including one serial child rapist

Americans use their legal guns to stop rapes, robberies, murders,stabbings, and beatings saving more lives than criminals take….you idiot.


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Criminals account for 0.1% of incidents, you need to get that out of your system. It's a deflection tactic because you know American's guns are fucked up.







Maybe on your planet.  But not on this one.  You are literally full of poo.


----------



## miketx (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Criminals account for 0.1% of incidents, you need to get that out of your system. It's a deflection tactic because you know American's guns are fucked up.


You're a fucking liar, come get mine commie.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wash, rinse, repeat. Thank you for the usual shit post, hence this thread


Why do you believe someone should explain why they want to exercise a Constitutionally protected right?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 5, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Why do you believe someone should explain why they want to exercise a Constitutionally protected right?




Ooooh......oooooh.....pick me!  Pick me!


Because he is a fascist...and a fascist does not believe in individual Rights or freedom....they only believe in the power of the Central Government to do what they want to do without resistance by the population...


----------



## miketx (Mar 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Blatantly, your background checks are done tongue in cheek.


You're a liar.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 5, 2022)

Meister said:


> They are not mutually exclusive, son.
> A person is a criminal.  Not all persons are criminals, like what you're inferring.


What it is, the deflection from the topic is, "Der, it"s der kriminals that ave guns an cause Der pwoblems". But they're a tiny minority, it's what you would class normal people, Joe public that cause the bulk of the problem. Simply because you're lazy dazy on who owns them, where and how they're used, and how they're stored. Hence your gun problem.

So go off down criminal routes, Rights route and all that bollox, but it's down to the right people having appropriate guns, using them in appropriate places and storing them appropriately. That's the bit that doesn't get into your skull. Learning your alphabet is fucking harder than understanding gun problems.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What it is, the deflection from the topic is, "Der, it"s der kriminals that ave guns an cause Der pwoblems". But they're a tiny minority, it's what you would class normal people, Joe public that cause the bulk of the problem. Simply because you're lazy dazy on who owns them, where and how they're used, and how they're stored. Hence your gun problem.
> 
> So go off down criminal routes, Rights route and all that bollox, but it's down to the right people having appropriate guns, using them in appropriate places and storing them appropriately. That's the bit that doesn't get into your skull. Learning your alphabet is fucking harder than understanding gun problems.




Wow...that's dumb.

The tiny number of criminals in democrat party controlled cities are causing 95% of our gun crime......they are released, over and over again, no matter their gun crimes, by democrat party politicians and judges......

Law abiding people don't use any of their guns for crime, you idiot...so they aren't driving the crime problem...you idiot...

D.C. study...
*A study finds that suspects in violent crime in the District share a lot of characteristics.*
*
The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform looked at the numbers for homicides and nonfatal shooting in D.C. in 2019 and 2020, and found that “most gun violence is tightly concentrated on a small number of very high-risk young Black male adults that share a common set of risk factors.”

Those factors include involvements in street crews, a previous criminal justice history and connection to a recent shooting. Often, they’ve been the victims of crime themselves. While the motive for the shooting “may not be a traditional gang war,” the report says, “often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now-ubiquitous social media slight.”
---------
More than 90% of victims and suspects in 2019 and 2020 were male and about 96% were Black.

The study also found that another 86% of victims and suspects have been involved with the criminal justice system and the average age of victims is 31, while the average age of suspects is 27 years old.

They found that, in terms of prior arrests, “victims and suspects were remarkably similar.”

http://[URL='https://wtop.com/dc/20...dc-gun-crimes-involve-small-number-of-people/[/URL]


Bonus content.......the actual study...

About 96 percent of victims and suspects in both homicides and nonfatal shootings were Black, despite Black residents comprising only 46 percent of the overall population in the District (Table 1).
-----*
*Approximately 86 percent of homicide victims and suspects were known to the criminal justice system prior to the incident. Among all victims and suspects, about 46 percent had been previously incarcerated (Figure 2).
At least 23.3 percent of all homicide victims and suspects were under active supervision (i.e., CSOSA, PSA, or DYRS)1. At least 64 percent of all victims and suspects had been under any prior or active supervision and at least 76% of homicide suspects had active or prior supervision.*
*------
Overall, most victims and suspects with prior criminal offenses had been arrested about 11 times for about 13 different offenses by the time of the homicide. This count only refers to adult arrests and juvenile arrests were not included.
-------

In Washington, DC, most gun violence is tightly concentrated on a small number of very high risk young Black male adults that share a common set of risk factors, including: involvement in street crews/groups; significant criminal justice history including prior or active community supervision; often prior victimization; and a connection to a recent shooting (within the past 12 months).*


*While the majority of people involved in shootings, as victim or suspect, are members or associates of street groups/gangs, the motive for the shooting may not be a traditional gang war. Often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now ubiquitous social media slight.*
*-----*


*This small number of very high risk individuals are identifiable, their violence is predictable, and therefore it is preventable. *



*Based on the assessment of data and the series of interviews conducted, NICJR estimates that within a year, there are at least 500 identifiable people who rise to this level of very high risk, and likely no more than 200 at any one given time. These individuals comprise approximately 60-70% of all gun violence in the District. Nealy 250 specific individuals were identified through the GVPA process but more importantly, the risk factors that make someone at very high risk has been identified in order to develop an on-going process to focus intervention efforts on those at very high risk.*

https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/f... Violence Problem Analysis Summary Report.pdf
========


----------



## Meister (Mar 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What it is, the deflection from the topic is, "Der, it"s der kriminals that ave guns an cause Der pwoblems". But they're a tiny minority, it's what you would class normal people, Joe public that cause the bulk of the problem. Simply because you're lazy dazy on who owns them, where and how they're used, and how they're stored. Hence your gun problem.
> 
> So go off down criminal routes, Rights route and all that bollox, but it's down to the right people having appropriate guns, using them in appropriate places and storing them appropriately. That's the bit that doesn't get into your skull. Learning your alphabet is fucking harder than understanding gun problems.


So in your fucked up world, the normal everyday citizens that owns guns and don't commit crimes are the problem.
Got it.

Dude, you have no clue on what your are even babbling about. 
Sometimes it's better to remain silent and thought a fool, than it is
to speak and remove all doubt.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 5, 2022)

Meister said:


> So in your fucked up world, the normal everyday citizens that owns guns and don't commit crimes are the problem.
> Got it.
> 
> Dude, you have no clue on what your are even babbling about.
> ...


No.

Your last part, you should be silent.


----------



## westwall (Mar 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What it is, the deflection from the topic is, "Der, it"s der kriminals that ave guns an cause Der pwoblems". But they're a tiny minority, it's what you would class normal people, Joe public that cause the bulk of the problem. Simply because you're lazy dazy on who owns them, where and how they're used, and how they're stored. Hence your gun problem.
> 
> So go off down criminal routes, Rights route and all that bollox, but it's down to the right people having appropriate guns, using them in appropriate places and storing them appropriately. That's the bit that doesn't get into your skull. Learning your alphabet is fucking harder than understanding gun problems.






No, the part that doesn't get into your skull is there is no such thing as the " right people".

That is a class statement.  Everyone is the " right people" here, until they break the law.

We have 300 MILLION firearms, all peacefully going about their day.  Every day.  And we have a very small violent population that breaks the law.

Only an idiot would try and take guns away from the law abiding.  The criminals don't obey laws, so the only people your kind of laws help ARE the criminals. 

DURRRRRRRR


----------



## ... (Mar 5, 2022)

miketx said:


> Shit stains like you don't accept the truth.


The truth is very hard for you far right gun thugs to take; I know.  The NRA and that thief Wayne La'Pierre gave you guys all that koolaid to drink while they set about bastardizing our constitution.

You guys drank it, did the NRA's bidding and then asked for more.


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


I use them as penis extenders...........  If you believe that I have a shitload of bridges for sale.........


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 5, 2022)

jet57 said:


> The other side of the coin doesn’t need a weekend GI Joe with what are essentially M16s.
> It’s shown to be very dangerous for people.


When, where and how has that been shown to be very dangerous?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 5, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You guys have no competent arguments against me.
> 
> /


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". 

Feel free to show us where the Constitution says otherwise.


----------



## miketx (Mar 5, 2022)

Ringel05 said:


> I use them as penis extenders...........  If you believe that I have a shitload of bridges for sale.........


I know right? I was at the range day and this gal said that the only reason I have guns is to make up for my shortcomings. I told her if that were true I'd never have bought a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.


----------



## FJB (Mar 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You guys do it every 5 minutes, every day, every week, every month, every year, every decade, every century. So that issue is now resolved, no need for you to ever mention that again.
> 
> I'm here to cleanse Americans of their gun troubles.



How is that any of your business? 




Captain Caveman said:


> Come on progressive hunter , something about guns is troubling you. Maybe we can finally cover it so you don't have to mention it again. So what's your troubling gun point?




The only troubling thing I see so far is when somebody from another country thinks they know how to run ours and won't shut up about it.




Captain Caveman said:


> I'm not anti gun, I just find the gun nut brigade regurgitating the same old gun shite every five seconds nauseating.



Then why not ignore those threads?




Blues Man said:


> We don;t have a gun problem.




If somebody tried to take my gun away from me there would be a problem,.. but it wouldn't be mine. (And yes I do believe that you can shoot somebody who is trying to take your gun for in fear that they would use your own gun on you.)


----------



## ... (Mar 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> When, where and how has that been shown to be very dangerous?


You mean people with AR15s running pulling mass shootings?


----------



## ... (Mar 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Feel free to show us where the Constitution says otherwise.











						Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved
					

A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.




					theconversation.com
				




Read that, study up on early American gun control and somewhere in there you'll also find that post Revolution, the only people that could carry a rifle with a bayonet lug were standing members of the sanctioned local militia, most of whom were veterans anyway.

Our constitution has been bastardized by gun thugs and crooked NRA leadership and dishonest politicians.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Mar 5, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, the part that doesn't get into your skull is there is no such thing as the " right people".
> 
> That is a class statement. Everyone is the " right people" here, until they break the law.



  That gets down to one of the essential differences between the backward British culture, as well as many of the other backward European cultures, and American culture.

  In much of Europe, there are royalty and their are various levels of nobility, in which a person's worth is established by what family he was born into, or what titles have been bestowed upon him by the royals.  That is one of the principles which we rejected in founding this nation, which is stated in our Declaration of Independence as _“all men are created equal”_.

  In America, you do not get to be better than anyone else, just for having been born into the right families.  We don't have kings and princes and dukes and knights and counts and all that other feudal bullshit.

  In America, the only way you get to be better or worse than anyone else is by the choices that you make.  The way you get to be the _“right people”_ is by being a good citizen, by working at an honest job to make an honest living, by doing things that contribute to society as a whole, and by refraining from criminal behavior.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Mar 5, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Our constitution has been bastardized by gun thugs and crooked NRA leadership and dishonest politicians.



  So, what you are saying, here, is that our Constitution has been _“bastardized”_ to mean exactly what it explicitly and unambiguously says?


----------



## miketx (Mar 5, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Our constitution has been bastardized by gun thugs and crooked NRA leadership and dishonest politicians.


It says the same thing it said in the beginning you lying commie bastard.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 5, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved
> 
> 
> A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.
> ...


Feel free to show us where any of that is in the Constitution?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What it is, the deflection from the topic is,


Which is what conservatives do on this and other topics, the consequence of their cowardice and dishonesty – red herring fallacies, deflections, and lies.

Conservatives are also demagogues – contriving and propagating lies about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 5, 2022)

FJB said:


> How is that any of your business?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As if on cue…

A conservative lying about guns being ‘taken away.’


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As if on cue…
> 
> A conservative lying about guns being ‘taken away.’


Anyone who says the objective ISNT to outright ban guns is either stupid, or lying.


----------



## FJB (Mar 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Anyone who says the objective ISNT to outright ban guns is either stupid, or lying.




Or both.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 6, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved
> 
> 
> A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.
> ...




15 million innocent men, women and children murdered across Europe in 6 years by socialists....and you push gun control as a good idea?   You truly are stupidl.

Gun registration leads to gun confiscation...we know this from actual human history.....

Gun carrying was an accepted practice throughout the U.S.....even in colonial days, the only people who weren't allowed to own and carry guns?   Slaves and native Americans......how'd that turn out for them?

Stand your Ground laws came about because fascists like you would persecute innocent people who defended themselves from violent criminals.....so laws had to be created to keep the victims safe from fascists like you...who would charge them and put them in prison for the act of fighting off violent criminals....Self Defense is not allowed in Britain.......we choose to allow normal people to stop violent monsters from committing rape, robbery, murder, beatings and stabbings....

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

Can you answer these questions?   I doubt it, anti-gun fascists like you never do.....

Safe storage laws are simply a means to criminalize gun owning by normal people......it will start out as a simple fine, then fascists like you will incrementally make it so burdensome, through fines, and red tape, that the poor will be unable to comply with storing their guns according to the expensive, prohibitive laws you will then create........any law you pass is simply a first step to more and more red tape and legal jeopardy to make people stop buying, owning and carrying guns...

We know who you are, we know what you want, we know your tricks......

This guy from your link should actually read the Heller decision...where they actually go through all of the history of the Right to own and carry guns in this country.....

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous in stances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provi sions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry
ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms- bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Intro duction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.
----

*In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentle man’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15
------*

They accordingly obtained an assurance from Wil liam and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants 
would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protes tants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Consti tution of the United States §1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limi tatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian political principles,” not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “consti tuted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.  
See 1 Black- stone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self- preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140;




			https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

Ringel05 said:


> I use them as penis extenders...........  If you believe that I have a shitload of bridges for sale.........


Yes, you will. Guns in America are a macho thing and blokes need to compensate because you're a nation of tiny penises.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Which is what conservatives do on this and other topics, the consequence of their cowardice and dishonesty – red herring fallacies, deflections, and lies.
> 
> Conservatives are also demagogues – contriving and propagating lies about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


I'm conservative and I know idiots in society with guns is a bad recipe. Guns have a time and place.


----------



## westwall (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm conservative and I know idiots in society with guns is a bad recipe. Guns have a time and place.





And that time is now, and that place is everywhere bad people try and hurt good people.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> 15 million innocent men, women and children murdered across Europe in 6 years by socialists....and you push gun control as a good idea?   You truly are stupidl.
> 
> Gun registration leads to gun confiscation...we know this from actual human history.....
> 
> ...


Founding fathers, Rinse, Wash, Repeat.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, you will. Guns in America are a macho thing and blokes need to compensate because you're a nation of tiny penises.


Right.





I am a woman and I began my firearms instruction in Montana.  While I was learning to shoot, I paid attention to what the men were saying.  Every "good old boy" I asked agreed that women are far better shooters than men.  I moved from the west coast to the Midwest several months ago and I make it a point to talk to women in my new town about how they feel about firearms.  I knew when I moved here that all the men would be shooters, but guess what!  So are all the women I've talked to.  Our governor (see photo) is well known for her hunting skills.

Your "macho" theory of gun ownership and use is complete bullshit.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

westwall said:


> And that time is now, and that place is everywhere bad people try and hurt good people.


No. You don't need guns for protection, that's a fallacy. A criminal is someone who breaks the law in a criminal way. That can be done in hundreds of ways. Just thinking it's by a gun and a gun alone, just shows you how fucking retarded that person is. In fact, gun crime struggles to represent 0.1% of crime. And even then, it's normally between people who they know or gangs. 

You can enjoy guns by pigeon shooting, grouse shooting and target ranges. You don't have enemies going after you so this fallacy of family protection is beyond ridiculous.

If your country needs protected, you have an army, not domestic retards like you.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Right.
> 
> View attachment 611425
> 
> ...


In women, the macho is wide on's.

Don't forget to polish your gun, hoover up and make sandwiches.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Founding fathers, Rinse, Wash, Repeat.


Translation -- "I have nothing intelligent to say here".

And the common phrase I think you are trying to use here is actually "Wash, Rinse, Repeat".  But we get it.  ESL.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> In women, the macho is wide on's.
> 
> Don't forget to polish your gun, hoover up and make sandwiches.


Refer to post #441.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Translation -- "I have nothing intelligent to say here".
> 
> And the common phrase I think you are trying to use here is actually "Wash, Rinse, Repeat".  But we get it.  ESL.


Correct, it's the whole purpose of the thread, you stupid funcking bint. The retards come out with, criminals, independence, Rights, protection, founding fathers. And nothing else. It's the same old retard shit they come out with. Start at post #1 and catch up before opening your gob.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Refer to post #441.


Refer to post #440


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Refer to post #440


How original


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

westwall said:


> And that time is now, and that place is everywhere bad people try and hurt good people.


That's why you need a robust and thorough vetting procedure instead of the brainless stupid fucking Rights system.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> How original


I repeat your shit and you laugh. What a brainless ****


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Correct, it's the whole purpose of the thread, you stupid funcking bint. The retards come out with, criminals, independence, Rights, protection, founding fathers. And nothing else. It's the same old retard shit they come out with. Start at post #1 and catch up before opening your gob.


POSTING WHILE NEANDERTHAL.  Not a pretty thing, folks.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I repeat your shit and you laugh. What a brainless ****


ouch




































NOT


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> POSTING WHILE NEANDERTHAL.  Not a pretty thing, folks.


Correct, you ain't pretty.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Correct, you ain't pretty.


This comes from a disarmed cuckolded *SUBJECT* from a lower-caste tribe of people who are powerless to protect themselves and mostly in dire need of dental work.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 6, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> This comes from a disarmed cuckolded *SUBJECT* from a lower-caste tribe of people who are powerless to protect themselves and mostly in dire need of dental work.


Yet again, read down the thread. Brits aren't disarmed. Uneducated retards believe we are. Are you yet another numpty that needs schooled.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 6, 2022)

jet57 said:


> You mean people with AR15s running pulling mass shootings?


You still haven't learned a god damned thing about rifles have you?

The AR 15 is not a separate class if semiautomatic rifle and there are dozens of other rifle models available that fire the exact same round and have the exact same accuracy.

Your irrational fear of this rifle has nothing to do with the round or the fact that it is a semiautomatic and everything to do with cosmetic doodads


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Founding fathers, Rinse, Wash, Repeat.


So the fuck what?

AT least we don't bend the knee to a fucking monarch


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yet again, read down the thread. Brits aren't disarmed. Uneducated retards believe we are. Are you yet another numpty that needs schooled



Not disarmed you just can;t own handguns, can't carry handguns, can't own semiautomatic rifles, can't own a shotgun with a magazine larger than 3 rounds

You must pay to be licensed and those weapons can be taken from you at any time for any reason

So IOW you really have no protected RIGHTS when it comes to firearms


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, you will. Guns in America are a macho thing and blokes need to compensate because you're a nation of tiny penises.




What is it with you anti-gun fascists.....like other leftists, you have a warped view of sex.......we start talking about guns, and eventually you guys are rubbing yourselves and talking about the penis...........guns are not sex toys....for some reason, your psycho-sexual response has become twisted, and you associate sex with guns....you need to get help, before you hurt yourself or your sex doll........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yet again, read down the thread. Brits aren't disarmed. Uneducated retards believe we are. Are you yet another numpty that needs schooled.




Yeah...you are......

Explain this...

A member of the House of Lords can get a license to own one of a limited selection of birding pieces to go with his other rich friends, to his private estate to hunt quail....

Meanwhile, a woman in London cannot get a gun permit to prevent herself from being gang raped in a London park....

How does this make sense to you?


----------



## westwall (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> In women, the macho is wide on's.
> 
> Don't forget to polish your gun, hoover up and make sandwiches.





Soooooo, you hate women too.  More and more you are sounding like Ted bundy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 6, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Anyone who says the objective ISNT to outright ban guns is either stupid, or lying.


Guns aren’t going to be ‘banned,’ guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated’ – those are ridiculous lies contrived by dishonest rightwing demagogues.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> *I'm conservative* and I know idiots in society with guns is a bad recipe. Guns have a time and place.



  You're as much conservative as Bruce Jenner is a woman.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Mar 6, 2022)

I do not think it is known who really said the quote that is popularly but incorrectly attributed to Freud, about a fear of weapons being a signs of retarded sexual development, but if you let a left *wrong*-wing piece of filth talk long enough about why he opposes allowing human beings to be armed, eventually he will prove that whomever did originally say that had it right.



Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, you will. Guns in America are a macho thing and blokes need to compensate because you're a nation of tiny penises.



  Note that it is not ever those who support the right to bear arms that insist on equating weapons with genitalia or other sexual issues; it's those who oppose this right, and who inevitably end up projecting their own perceived sexual inadequacies.


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, you will. Guns in America are a macho thing and blokes need to compensate because you're a nation of tiny penises.


Okay, right now I have a super deal on the London bridge, 20% off my ususal asking price!!


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Guns aren’t going to be ‘banned,’ guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated’ – those are ridiculous lies contrived by dishonest rightwing demagogues.


There will be a ban.  It may be a defacto ban, but the anti-gunners don't want guns and ammunition to be available, either by outlawing them, or creating a scenario where they are no longer available.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, you will. Guns in America are a macho thing and blokes need to compensate because you're a nation of tiny penises.


Why are leftists so hung up on talking about cocks?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 7, 2022)

The thing is Meister , if your reason, or one of your reasons was for self protection, then I assume you are willing to shoot someone?

That's where you have a gun problem. It doesn't matter what you label the person (criminal or Joe public), that person is willing to shoot someone, and that's where your culture has a problem. Use that as reason to have a gun in the UK, you will be denied, you need to have a much mentality here and the public will be grateful you were denied a gun.

So by all means spout criminals, Independence, and the usual bla bla bla shite, it's the mentality behind guns that gives you high gun deaths and incidents.


----------



## Meister (Mar 7, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The thing is Meister , if your reason, or one of your reasons was for self protection, then I assume you are willing to shoot someone?
> 
> That's where you have a gun problem. It doesn't matter what you label the person (criminal or Joe public), that person is willing to shoot someone, and that's where your culture has a problem. Use that as reason to have a gun in the UK, you will be denied, you need to have a much mentality here and the public will be grateful you were denied a gun.
> 
> So by all means spout criminals, Independence, and the usual bla bla bla shite, it's the mentality behind guns that gives you high gun deaths and incidents.


I'm done with you as a chew toy, you have seen your day, now you're just boring.
On to the next one.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 7, 2022)

Meister said:


> I'm done with you, as a chew toy, you have seen your day, now you're just boring.
> On to the next one.


The truth does hurt. Just pointing out the difference in gun orientation in the UK v US, and we enjoy minimal incidents.
 So if you strip out the usual, Independence, 2nd Amendment, Criminals, Self Protection, pro gunners fall flat on their face, that's why they default to that list to deflect.

But guns and gun culture won't change in America, and neither will the stats.


----------



## westwall (Mar 7, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The thing is Meister , if your reason, or one of your reasons was for self protection, then I assume you are willing to shoot someone?
> 
> That's where you have a gun problem. It doesn't matter what you label the person (criminal or Joe public), that person is willing to shoot someone, and that's where your culture has a problem. Use that as reason to have a gun in the UK, you will be denied, you need to have a much mentality here and the public will be grateful you were denied a gun.
> 
> So by all means spout criminals, Independence, and the usual bla bla bla shite, it's the mentality behind guns that gives you high gun deaths and incidents.





Of course I am willing to shoot someone.   Some asshole tries to harm my wife or daughter and he is going to have a real bad day.

The fact that you won't defend your loved ones just shows you to be a coward.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 8, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The thing is Meister , if your reason, or one of your reasons was for self protection, then I assume you are willing to shoot someone?
> 
> That's where you have a gun problem. It doesn't matter what you label the person (criminal or Joe public), that person is willing to shoot someone, and that's where your culture has a problem. Use that as reason to have a gun in the UK, you will be denied, you need to have a much mentality here and the public will be grateful you were denied a gun.
> 
> So by all means spout criminals, Independence, and the usual bla bla bla shite, it's the mentality behind guns that gives you high gun deaths and incidents.


So let me get this straight.

If some piece of shit was about to club your wife with a lead pipe you wouldn't be willing to shoot the fucker?

Shooting a person is always the very last resort.   But you are unwilling to shoot so you will just stand there wringing your hands and hope the fucking police show up right?

In fact most of the time the mere drawing of a firearm will deescalate the stiuation


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 8, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So let me get this straight.
> 
> If some piece of shit was about to club your wife with a lead pipe you wouldn't be willing to shoot the fucker?
> 
> ...


No. What you have to get straight is, if you apply for a shotgun and/or firearm certificate in the UK and your reason or a part of your reason was to protect yourself from others (IE. Willing to shoot someone for your protection), your application would be declined and I imagine you will have fucked up your future chances of ever owning a gun.

Create as many hypotheticals as you want, you need to be deemed suitable to own a firearm in the UK. Hence the low gun crime and incidents. If your population has a "protect myself with a gun" mentality", there lies a major problem. Brits get it, Americans won't, different cultures.


----------



## westwall (Mar 8, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No. What you have to get straight is, if you apply for a shotgun and/or firearm certificate in the UK and your reason or a part of your reason was to protect yourself from others (IE. Willing to shoot someone for your protection), your application would be declined and I imagine you will have fucked up your future chances of ever owning a gun.





Yeah, we know.  You aren't allowed to defend yourself in that fucked up country.

That's why kicked your asses to the curb.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 8, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, we know.  You aren't allowed to defend yourself in that fucked up country.
> 
> That's why kicked your asses to the curb.


Yet again, you still milk the same old shit because with guns, your brain is fucking retarded. You're ok on environment etc.., but fucking retarded on guns.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 8, 2022)

westwall 

Der, we kicked your butt. Der, self protection. Der, Rights. Der, bla bla. Der bla bla.

Same shit every time, deflection every time because you know fine well your gun stance and reasons are wank.


----------



## westwall (Mar 8, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> westwall
> 
> Der, we kicked your butt. Der, self protection. Der, Rights. Der, bla bla. Der bla bla.
> 
> Same shit every time, deflection every time because you know fine well your gun stance and reasons are wank.







Clearly you need a lesson in history too.  No, we kicked your ass.  The vaunted English Navy was humbled by four US frigates who absolutely beat the ever loving shit out of you so bad that the Admiralty ordered no British frigate to engage in a one on one battle with them.  You sent an entire fleet after one frigate and FAILED to capture her.

Basically, you guys sucked.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 8, 2022)

westwall said:


> Clearly you need a lesson in history too.  No, we kicked your ass.  The vaunted English Navy was humbled by four US frigates who absolutely beat the ever loving shit out of you so bad that the Admiralty ordered no British frigate to engage in a one on one battle with them.  You sent an entire fleet after one frigate and FAILED to capture her.
> 
> Basically, you guys sucked.


God Bless America.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 8, 2022)

westwall said:


> Clearly you need a lesson in history too.  No, we kicked your ass.  The vaunted English Navy was humbled by four US frigates who absolutely beat the ever loving shit out of you so bad that the Admiralty ordered no British frigate to engage in a one on one battle with them.  You sent an entire fleet after one frigate and FAILED to capture her.
> 
> Basically, you guys sucked.


Same old same.

Let's get back to gun safety. How can they be made safe in America? I propose scrapping the 2nd Amendment for future generations. A generation is classed as 25 to 30 years, so in 30 years time, bring in British, Australian, and New Zealand type gun laws. That will be fair and will go towards reversing the gun problem.


----------



## westwall (Mar 8, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Same old same.
> 
> Let's get back to gun safety. How can they be made safe in America? I propose scrapping the 2nd Amendment for future generations. A generation is classed as 25 to 30 years, so in 30 years time, bring in British, Australian, and New Zealand type gun laws. That will be fair and will go towards reversing the gun problem.






Yes, you are a one track record.  Piss off.  You are nothing more than a class system propagandist.

We don't like your kind around here.

You stink up the place.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> My question, why are you SO fucking obsessed with guns?


For conservatives, the obsession is not with guns _per se_; rather, it’s an obsession with the lies and fallacies conservatives contrive and propagate about guns, the right’s obsession with making guns political, and using their lies and fallacies as political weapons.

The right’s two most egregious lies are of course that guns will be ‘banned’ and eventually ‘confiscated,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The more common fallacies conservatives engage in concerning guns is the slippery slope fallacy, the confirmation bias fallacy, and the hasty generalization fallacy.

The slippery slope fallacy manifests when perfectly appropriate, Constitutional firearm regulatory measures are enacted, and conservatives advance the lie that such regulations will eventually result in guns being ‘banned’ and confiscated.’

Conservatives resort to the confirmation bias fallacy with ridiculous sophistry that firearm regulatory measures don’t work because ‘gun crimes keep happening’ or that ‘criminals don’t obey the law.’

And the hasty generalization fallacy comes into play when a single individual might advocate for a ‘ban’ on assault weapons, a lone individual who is not representative of any political group, organization, or philosophy.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 8, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For conservatives, the obsession is not with guns _per se_; rather, it’s an obsession with the lies and fallacies conservatives contrive and propagate about guns, the right’s obsession with making guns political, and using their lies and fallacies as political weapons.
> 
> The right’s two most egregious lies are of course that guns will be ‘banned’ and eventually ‘confiscated,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No. What you have to get straight is, if you apply for a shotgun and/or firearm certificate in the UK and your reason or a part of your reason was to protect yourself from others (IE. Willing to shoot someone for your protection), your application would be declined and I imagine you will have fucked up your future chances of ever owning a gun.
> 
> Create as many hypotheticals as you want, you need to be deemed suitable to own a firearm in the UK. Hence the low gun crime and incidents. If your population has a "protect myself with a gun" mentality", there lies a major problem. Brits get it, Americans won't, different cultures.


Which is why firearm regulatory measures found in the UK and other Western countries won’t work.

America’s is an inherently violent society, where violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


>


Conservatives are liars and demagogues concerning guns – along with most everything else.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 8, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives are liars and demagogues concerning guns – along with most everything else.


I iterate.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 9, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No. What you have to get straight is, if you apply for a shotgun and/or firearm certificate in the UK and your reason or a part of your reason was to protect yourself from others (IE. Willing to shoot someone for your protection), your application would be declined and I imagine you will have fucked up your future chances of ever owning a gun.
> 
> Create as many hypotheticals as you want, you need to be deemed suitable to own a firearm in the UK. Hence the low gun crime and incidents. If your population has a "protect myself with a gun" mentality", there lies a major problem. Brits get it, Americans won't, different cultures.


Like i said  you cannot own a hand gun a semiautomatic rifle in any caliber but .22 and you can't own a shotgun with more than a 3 round mag.

You have no right to own a firearm you can only own one with the permission of the fucking government and that same government can revoke that privilege at any time for any reason.

We know you like being under the thumb of your monarch and you accept the fact that you have to beg the government for privilege.

So you stay there on your little island with your incestuous monarch family and mind your own fucking business about what we do in our own country


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 9, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...



I think in the modern era people see their guns as their way of protecting themselves against the government. People make the government out to be this big monster (well, it is a big monster) and so they want to protect themselves.

Problem is they have guns instead of using their brains. Change the way people are elected to Proportional Representation and the government will be less of a monster. But oh no, they don't want that... because.... maybe because it'll give them less reason to have guns.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I think in the modern era people see their guns as their way of protecting themselves against the government. People make the government out to be this big monster (well, it is a big monster) and so they want to protect themselves.
> 
> Problem is they have guns instead of using their brains. Change the way people are elected to Proportional Representation and the government will be less of a monster. But oh no, they don't want that... because.... maybe because it'll give them less reason to have guns.


No one I know who owns any firearms ( and it's a lot of people) count protection from the government as a reason for owning them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No one I know who owns any firearms ( and it's a lot of people) count protection from the government as a reason for owning them.



A lot of people don't know what drives them. They think they know, they think they're in control of their lives. But the reality is their lives are driven by their needs, wants and fears.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> A lot of people don't know what drives them. They think they know, they think they're in control of their lives. But the reality is their lives are driven by their needs, wants and fears.


You really think all gun owners fear their government so much that they buy guns for that reason alone?

Ask anyone and the first answer will most likely be self defense  or sporting activities


----------



## westwall (Mar 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I think in the modern era people see their guns as their way of protecting themselves against the government. People make the government out to be this big monster (well, it is a big monster) and so they want to protect themselves.
> 
> Problem is they have guns instead of using their brains. Change the way people are elected to Proportional Representation and the government will be less of a monster. But oh no, they don't want that... because.... maybe because it'll give them less reason to have guns.





The vote is being stolen so your supposed solution is dead from the beginning.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For conservatives, the obsession is not with guns _per se_; rather, it’s an obsession with the lies and fallacies conservatives contrive and propagate about guns, the right’s obsession with making guns political, and using their lies and fallacies as political weapons.
> 
> The right’s two most egregious lies are of course that guns will be ‘banned’ and eventually ‘confiscated,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> ...


I'm UK Rightwing. We use and enjoy guns. The striking difference between the UK and the US is the mentality behind guns. We use them for grouse, pheasant shoots, clay pigeon shooting, vermin control and target practice. It seems Americans are willing to shoot their countryman under the fallacy of self defence. So any idea of gun safety in America is doomed.

That's why they would have to pick a point in time where a major change coincides with changes in generations, out with the old, in with the new. In 30 years time, the unborn have no use for the fallacy of self defence with again, so different rules for them. As current generations die out, so does their out of date ideas. I mean, their brains are stuck in the 1700's.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Which is why firearm regulatory measures found in the UK and other Western countries won’t work.
> 
> America’s is an inherently violent society, where violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution.


It was created on violence, and certain traits still exist.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I think in the modern era people see their guns as their way of protecting themselves against the government. People make the government out to be this big monster (well, it is a big monster) and so they want to protect themselves.
> 
> Problem is they have guns instead of using their brains. Change the way people are elected to Proportional Representation and the government will be less of a monster. But oh no, they don't want that... because.... maybe because it'll give them less reason to have guns.


I can't help with that stupid idea.


----------



## westwall (Mar 9, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm UK Rightwing. We use and enjoy guns. The striking difference between the UK and the US is the mentality behind guns. We use them for grouse, pheasant shoots, clay pigeon shooting, vermin control and target practice. It seems Americans are willing to shoot their countryman under the fallacy of self defence. So any idea of gun safety in America is doomed.
> 
> That's why they would have to pick a point in time where a major change coincides with changes in generations, out with the old, in with the new. In 30 years time, the unborn have no use for the fallacy of self defence with again, so different rules for them. As current generations die out, so does their out of date ideas. I mean, their brains are stuck in the 1700's.





You are a statist.  That makes you a lefty.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Mar 9, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> It was created on violence, and certain traits still exist.



  George III wasn't going to peacefully give up the power that he demanded over us.

  The only way that Americans were ever going to enjoy freedom, independence, and recognition of certain essential human rights that you backward British filth still refuse to recognize, was by violent rebellion.


----------



## ... (Mar 9, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> George III wasn't going to peacefully give up the power that he demanded over us.
> 
> The only way that Americans were ever going to enjoy freedom, independence, and recognition of certain essential human rights that you backward British filth still refuse to recognize, was by violent rebellion.


Is that what happened on Jan 6th?

And if our Revolution was all about freedom and liberty, why did the patriots have to recruit and buy loyalty to the cause?


----------



## westwall (Mar 9, 2022)

jet57 said:


> Is that what happened on Jan 6th?
> 
> And if our Revolution was all about freedom and liberty, why did the patriots have to recruit and buy loyalty to the cause?






Had there been guns in DC on Jan 6th, then you would have a legit claim for insurrection.  There weren't, so you don't.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You really think all gun owners fear their government so much that they buy guns for that reason alone?
> 
> Ask anyone and the first answer will most likely be self defense  or sporting activities



I didn't say they bought guns ONLY because of their fear of the government. However mostly in modern society guns are not necessary except for self defense and the fear of government. 

We do know people go out and buy more guns when they think their guns are under threat.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I didn't say they bought guns ONLY because of their fear of the government. However mostly in modern society guns are not necessary except for self defense and the fear of government.
> 
> We do know people go out and buy more guns when they think their guns are under threat.


Hunting, sport shooting 

WHat's "necessary" for a person isn't up to you


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 10, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Hunting, sport shooting
> 
> WHat's "necessary" for a person isn't up to you



Sure it is.

Hunting and sports shooting are not necessary. People might like doing them, they might want to do them, but take them out of society and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Sure it is.
> 
> Hunting and sports shooting are not necessary. People might like doing them, they might want to do them, but take them out of society and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.


You have no authority to tell anyone else what they "need".  Period.  Full Stop

Mind your own fucking business


----------



## ... (Mar 10, 2022)

westwall said:


> Had there been guns in DC on Jan 6th, then you would have a legit claim for insurrection.  There weren't, so you don't.


There were guns in DC; a guy just got convicted of carrying one and he faces 60 years. The charges are getting more serious as the DOJ climbs the ladder of sedition and insurrection. The Proud Boys leader has just been arrested for conspiracy, so he and his anti-American thug buddies are going to prison as well.
I’d like to see some death penalties myself.


----------



## westwall (Mar 10, 2022)

jet57 said:


> There were guns in DC; a guy just got convicted of carrying one and he faces 60 years. The charges are getting more serious as the DOJ climbs the ladder of sedition and insurrection. The Proud Boys leader has just been arrested for conspiracy, so he and his anti-American thug buddies are going to prison as well.
> I’d like to see some death penalties myself.





Of course you would.  You're a fascist prick.  Pootin would love you.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 10, 2022)

jet57 said:


> There were guns in DC; a guy just got convicted of carrying one and he faces 60 years. The charges are getting more serious as the DOJ climbs the ladder of sedition and insurrection. The Proud Boys leader has just been arrested for conspiracy, so he and his anti-American thug buddies are going to prison as well.
> I’d like to see some death penalties myself.



Moron….a guy parked miles from the capitol who didn’t even take them out of the trunk of his car is not an armed insurrection …..you idiot.

No one actually at the capitol was armed, especially the people who were let into the building by pelosi’s police force, who simply walked around and took selfies…


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 10, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You have no authority to tell anyone else what they "need".  Period.  Full Stop
> 
> Mind your own fucking business



Dude, you really need to get a fix of reality. You're getting angry at nothing. You probably haven't even seen the words I've written for the mists of anger forming in front of your eyes.

There's a different better NEED and WANT. Whether you like it or not.


----------



## westwall (Mar 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Dude, you really need to get a fix of reality. You're getting angry at nothing. You probably haven't even seen the words I've written for the mists of anger forming in front of your eyes.
> 
> There's a different better NEED and WANT. Whether you like it or not.





Not when it comes to an individual Right it doesn't.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 11, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Dude, you really need to get a fix of reality. You're getting angry at nothing. You probably haven't even seen the words I've written for the mists of anger forming in front of your eyes.
> 
> There's a different better NEED and WANT. Whether you like it or not.


Not angry.

Just telling you the facts of life here.

You still don;t get to tell a person what he needs.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Not angry.
> 
> Just telling you the facts of life here.
> 
> You still don;t get to tell a person what he needs.



Actually I do. I'm sorry you can't cope with someone knowing the difference between wants and needs. Maybe you should go out and listen to people instead of keeping your head stuck in the sand. 

Needs are things that are ESSENTIAL to life. You NEED to breathe. You do not need a sofa, you WANT a sofa. Without using a gun to hunt would that person DIE? No, then it's not a FUCKING NEED.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I can't help with that stupid idea.


It is a stupid idea.

The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is a stupid idea.
> 
> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.




You should explain that to he Ukrainians......they won't have time to listen as they are currently using guns to fight an invasion by the Russian government....you moron....


----------



## westwall (Mar 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You should explain that to he Ukrainians......they won't have time to listen as they are currently using guns to fight an invasion by the Russian government....you moron....





C Clayton fancies himself a deep thinker, but everytime he opens his trap he shows just how shallow his thinking is..


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 9, 2022)

Meister said:


> I'm done with you as a chew toy, you have seen your day, now you're just boring.
> On to the next one.


Grandiose self-worth is a psychopathic trait


----------



## Blues Man (May 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Actually I do. I'm sorry you can't cope with someone knowing the difference between wants and needs. Maybe you should go out and listen to people instead of keeping your head stuck in the sand.
> 
> Needs are things that are ESSENTIAL to life. You NEED to breathe. You do not need a sofa, you WANT a sofa. Without using a gun to hunt would that person DIE? No, then it's not a FUCKING NEED.



No you do not get to tell a person what he needs

FYI we are not merely scraping to survive anymore as we have left that life far far behind us now.

The biggest threat to any human is now another human not some wild animal or the weather or starvation.

Weapons have always been a need and still are humans have used weapons at every stage of their evoltion.  Without them we would not be here today


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Actually I do. I'm sorry you can't cope with someone knowing the difference between wants and needs. Maybe you should go out and listen to people instead of keeping your head stuck in the sand.
> 
> Needs are things that are ESSENTIAL to life. You NEED to breathe. You do not need a sofa, you WANT a sofa. Without using a gun to hunt would that person DIE? No, then it's not a FUCKING NEED.


Show me in the bill of rights the word need


----------



## Rigby5 (May 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Dude, you really need to get a fix of reality. You're getting angry at nothing. You probably haven't even seen the words I've written for the mists of anger forming in front of your eyes.
> 
> There's a different better NEED and WANT. Whether you like it or not.



But in a democratic republic, all citizens NEED to have some sort of arms.
Relying on mercenaries like police and the military is bad for many reasons.
One is they are too late.
But more important is they are too unreliable, selling out to the highest bidder.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is a stupid idea.
> 
> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.



Obviously wrong.
This was a nation born of armed rebellion against an autocratic dictatorship, and all government decay to autocratic dictatorships eventually.
Eventually we WILL have to rebel once again.
It is inevitable.
And not as hard to do as it would seem, because as a government decays, its supports switch sides as well.
You do not have to take on tanks, bombers, ships, etc., when asymmetric warfare is far easier.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You should explain that to he Ukrainians......they won't have time to listen as they are currently using guns to fight an invasion by the Russian government....you moron....



I would agree with the logic except that the Ukrainians are the bad guys, who murder those of different ethnic cultures.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 9, 2022)

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."


----------



## Blues Man (May 9, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."


if they come at all


----------



## miketx (May 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Actually I do. I'm sorry you can't cope with someone knowing the difference between wants and needs. Maybe you should go out and listen to people instead of keeping your head stuck in the sand.
> 
> Needs are things that are ESSENTIAL to life. You NEED to breathe. You do not need a sofa, you WANT a sofa. Without using a gun to hunt would that person DIE? No, then it's not a FUCKING NEED.


We NEED guns to protect us against against criminals leftist scum lets loose and rioting, burning, and looting leftist scum.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Dude, you really need to get a fix of reality. You're getting angry at nothing. You probably haven't even seen the words I've written for the mists of anger forming in front of your eyes.
> 
> There's a different better NEED and WANT. Whether you like it or not.


Do you need religious freedom?  Do you need a free press?  Do you need any right guaranteed by The Bill of Rights?

Our natural rights can't exist based on the government's determination of "need".  By that logic, the government could abolish any right based on Congress's, the president's, or the court's opinion on whether, or not, you need them.  That can't be allowed to happen.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is a stupid idea.
> 
> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.


Why would it be wrong?  Would it have been wrong for Holocaust victims to use firearms to protect themselves against the government?


----------



## Woodznutz (May 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is a stupid idea.
> 
> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.


The way to defend against the government is to reduce the for need their 'services'.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is a stupid idea.
> 
> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit


Ukraine you dumb son of a bitch


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> But in a democratic republic, all citizens NEED to have some sort of arms.
> Relying on mercenaries like police and the military is bad for many reasons.
> One is they are too late.
> But more important is they are too unreliable, selling out to the highest bidder.



No, in a society that is unable to provide security without it turning into a dictatorship, ie, a useless country, then you need guns.

That America is unable to do this, say something....


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 9, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Do you need religious freedom?  Do you need a free press?  Do you need any right guaranteed by The Bill of Rights?
> 
> Our natural rights can't exist based on the government's determination of "need".  By that logic, the government could abolish any right based on Congress's, the president's, or the court's opinion on whether, or not, you need them.  That can't be allowed to happen.



No, I don't NEED them. 

No such thing as "natural rights", we can see how rights developed, and they developed from the Magna Carta which was pissed off noble men taking power from the monarch. Not natural.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, I don't NEED them.
> 
> No such thing as "natural rights", we can see how rights developed, and they developed from the Magna Carta which was pissed off noble men taking power from the monarch. Not natural.


*The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE*


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, I don't NEED them.
> 
> No such thing as "natural rights", we can see how rights developed, and they developed from the Magna Carta which was pissed off noble men taking power from the monarch. Not natural.


Freedom and liberty are natural rights.  They existed without permission from government.

If an animal is kept in a pen and the gate is left open, the animal's first instinct to leave the pen.

If an animal attacks in self defense, it's because that's a natural instinct.

Animals don't excercise these naturals rights because a government told them they could.

Our freedoms exist in spite of government, not because of government.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Freedom and liberty are natural rights.  They existed without permission from government.
> 
> If an animal is kept in a pen and the gate is left open, the animal's first instinct to leave the pen.
> 
> ...



No, they not. 

But anyway. You can BELIEVE whatever you like. 

But it looks like you're saying animals have rights, which means if a human breaks their rights, then this human should go to court and be executed for it.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (May 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> At breakfast time, let's talk about guns. Issue not resolved, so lunchtime, let's talk about guns. Still not resolved, so let's talk about guns at supper time.
> 
> Government could go tyrannical (yawn), so let's talk guns. DON'T TAKE MY GUNS, I'LL KILL YOU. So next day, let's talk guns. Problem still not resolved, let's talk guns.
> 
> ...


Here ya go little girl ....that is if you ever decide to aquire one..no matter what lesser nation you're in ..laws schmalls


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 10, 2022)

Tead t


frigidweirdo said:


> No, they not.
> 
> But anyway. You can BELIEVE whatever you like.
> 
> But it looks like you're saying animals have rights, which means if a human breaks their rights, then this human should go to court and be executed for it.


Read the founding documents numbnuts specifically the declaration of independence


----------



## Woodznutz (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, I don't NEED them.
> 
> No such thing as "natural rights", we can see how rights developed, and they developed from the Magna Carta which was pissed off noble men taking power from the monarch. Not natural.


The desire for personal liberty and freedom is innate in man.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm UK Rightwing. We use and enjoy guns. The striking difference between the UK and the US is the mentality behind guns. We use them for grouse, pheasant shoots, clay pigeon shooting, vermin control and target practice. It seems Americans are willing to shoot their countryman under the fallacy of self defence. So any idea of gun safety in America is doomed.
> 
> That's why they would have to pick a point in time where a major change coincides with changes in generations, out with the old, in with the new. In 30 years time, the unborn have no use for the fallacy of self defence with again, so different rules for them. As current generations die out, so does their out of date ideas. I mean, their brains are stuck in the 1700's.


Most gun owners here enjoy the same shooting sports. It's the minority that are causing the problems. That said we remember that we had to shoot our way to freedom from you guys.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (May 10, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> The desire for personal liberty and freedom is innate in man.


Anyone who thinks there is no such thing as natural rights is not a natural person.  Something gone very, very wrong in this person's psyche.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, I don't NEED them.
> 
> No such thing as "natural rights", we can see how rights developed, and they developed from the Magna Carta which was pissed off noble men taking power from the monarch. Not natural.


So, if I came at you with a meat cleaver, you would not defend yourself.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, they not.
> 
> But anyway. You can BELIEVE whatever you like.
> 
> But it looks like you're saying animals have rights, which means if a human breaks their rights, then this human should go to court and be executed for it.


Are you saying freedom and liberty didn't exist before the government invented them?...lol


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 10, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> So, if I came at you with a meat cleaver, you would not defend yourself.


Why do you want to attack someone with a meat cleaver?

I hope they use reasonable force and defend themselves with their meat cleaver.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 10, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Anyone who thinks there is no such thing as natural rights is not a natural person.  Something gone very, very wrong in this person's psyche.


Ok, you are washed up on a deserted island, please explain the natural rights that you have and how they help you?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Ok, you are washed up on a deserted island, please explain the natural rights that you have and how they help you?


Free speech, self defense, freedom of movement.  Or, are you going to wait for the government to tell you that you can defend yourself from a threat, or build a fire to keep warm and prepare food, or harvest plants and animals for food, or cut down trees to build a shelter?


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 10, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Free speech, self defense, freedom of movement.  Or, are you going to wait for the government to tell you that you can defend yourself from a threat, or build a fire to keep warm and prepare food, or harvest plants and animals for food, or cut down trees to build a shelter?


Free speech on a deserted island? Hmm, that's called, "Talking to yourself".

Which government on a deserted island would you wait for to tell you to protect yourself?

The things you've listed are just basic survival techniques that every living organism follows. So you, eat, sleep, seek shelter, hunt, and if a nasty animal attacks you, it's called flight or fight. Those who don't follow basic survival techniques would likely succumb to an earlier death.

So these basics, they're called Rights in America? I think your education system needs some overhauling.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Free speech on a deserted island? Hmm, that's called, "Talking to yourself".
> 
> Which government on a deserted island would you wait for to tell you to protect yourself?
> 
> ...


Yes, those are natural rights.  Hence, the government can't deprive you of the right to take care of yourself.  That's how natural rights work.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 10, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Yes, those are natural rights.  Hence, the government can't deprive you of the right to take care of yourself.  That's how natural rights work.


You guys are fucking loonies.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You guys are fucking loonies.


There's an intelligent counter-argument...lol


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> The desire for personal liberty and freedom is innate in man.



So that makes it a right then, does it? Anything that humans desire, must be a right?

Humans desire a home, they desire food, they desire all sorts of things. So these are all rights then?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So that makes it a right then, does it? Anything that humans desire, must be a right?
> 
> Humans desire a home, they desire food, they desire all sorts of things. So these are all rights then?


If I came at you with a meat cleaver, you would not fight back?

Please answer my question frigidweirdo


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Are you saying freedom and liberty didn't exist before the government invented them?...lol



Well, you have to ask yourself what "freedom" and "liberty" are. 

In the past times most people were not free and did not have liberty. People had to survive. They had to grow enough food to survive, or hunt and gather to survive. There wasn't freedom. Most people would either live under someone who had lots of power, or lived in a tribe where there weren't many choices to be made. 

The reason people went to the Americas was to try and get some semblance of freedom, away from a church that controlled most things they did, and controlled the society they were in. From monarchs who had lots of power and poor people who could be killed and there might not be consequences, but if they stole a loaf of bread, or went poaching, they might lose their life. 

The government didn't "invent" freedom. Freedom has been born out of economic success. When there's enough food that people can make the choice to move to the towns or cities and in those towns and cities they can earn enough money to live well, then they can have some sense of freedom.

Imagine in China today, the people have far more freedom than people had in Europe five hundred years ago.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So that makes it a right then, does it? Anything that humans desire, must be a right?
> 
> Humans desire a home, they desire food, they desire all sorts of things. So these are all rights then?


Personal liberty and freedom are protected rights in America...for now at least. 
The Dems believe the things you mention are rights, at least for minorities.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Personal liberty and freedom are protected rights in America...for now at least.
> The Dems believe the things you mention are rights, at least for minorities.



I know they are. Rights are a human construct, developed from the 1200s and the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights.

They're a power grab, taking power from the rulers and giving it to others. Not all rights in England were given to all people, rights have changed. The US Bill of Rights really helped cement rights as we see them now, rather than what they were in England.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, you have to ask yourself what "freedom" and "liberty" are.
> 
> In the past times most people were not free and did not have liberty. People had to survive. They had to grow enough food to survive, or hunt and gather to survive. There wasn't freedom. Most people would either live under someone who had lots of power, or lived in a tribe where there weren't many choices to be made.
> 
> ...


Many in America think true freedom is freedom from any responsibility for anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Many in America think true freedom is freedom from any responsibility for anything.



Oh yes. I'd love to make a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. 

People need to know what responsibilities they have in society, because people are, in general, selfish. They take what they want and they don't put anything back. Society can only function if there's knowledge of responsibilities to society. 

They need to know freedom, and all rights, have limits too.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Oh yes. I'd love to make a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
> 
> People need to know what responsibilities they have in society, because people are, in general, selfish. They take what they want and they don't put anything back. Society can only function if there's knowledge of responsibilities to society.
> 
> They need to know freedom, and all rights, have limits too.


I think that ship has sailed.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> I think that ship has sailed.



The problem in the US is that the politicians have created a really bad situation where they benefit and the country loses. I call for Proportional Representation all the time, because, realistically, it's the only way for the US to actually have sensible politics.

The fall of Rome has various factors, if you read any list, you'll probably find more than 50% are happening in the US right now. And no one cares.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 10, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I know they are. Rights are a human construct...


Thats the most moronic thing I've ever heard...lol


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 11, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Thats the most moronic thing I've ever heard...lol



Bye


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 11, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> There's an intelligent counter-argument...lol


The world watches America constantly scream on how Free they are and all these Rights you enjoy but no one else does, yet, they're  just things every living organism gets on with.


----------



## Batcat (May 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is a stupid idea.
> 
> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.


The citizens of Ukraine are doing rather well against the Russians who are trying to invade their nation. We have the most advanced military in the world but we didn’t do all that well in Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam. Never underestimate an armed citizenry.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 11, 2022)

Batcat said:


> The citizens of Ukraine are doing rather well against the Russians who are trying to invade their nation. We have the most advanced military in the world but we didn’t do all that well in Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam. Never underestimate an armed citizenry.


The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – it doesn’t take from the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

It does not authorize lawless armed insurrection against a government constitutionally elected reflecting the will of the people.

It does not authorize lawless armed insurrection against a government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ by a minority of armed insurrectionists.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 11, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> They need to know freedom, and all rights, have limits too.


Correct.

No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – including the Second Amendment right.

Government has the authority, consistent with the will of the people and Constitutional case law, to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights – including the Second Amendment right.

Limits and restrictions placed on the Second Amendment right by government is neither a ‘violation’ nor ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right.


----------



## Batcat (May 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.
> 
> There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.
> 
> ...


The founders had just overthrown their British government and so valued the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government if the government they created failed to represent them fairly. In order to be able to do so they realized they needed to own firearms. 









						Second Amendment: Last Line of Defense Against Tyranny
					

The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately...




					conservative-daily.com
				




***snip***

_The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately after defining the right to free speech._

***snip***

_
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms not so that you can grant the government consent, but so that, if necessary, you can act on your dissent!



John Locke writes that free men are obligated to dissolve tyrannical governments. He explains that when all earthly courts fail to uphold the rights of man, the citizen has the obligation and duty to take up arms against tyranny and make an “appeal to heaven.”



The Founders didn’t enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution so that you could go hunting, nor did they explicitly focus on carrying firearms in public for self-defense. For years, politicians have strayed away from the true purpose of the Second Amendment because, quite frankly, it threatens their very existence! The Second Amendment exists because tyranny, corruption, and abuse of power are unfortunate parts of the human experience.



We are 80 million gun owners endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms. This is a natural right given to all men and the Constitution merely protects it. We gave our government power and we reserve the right to take that authority away when it becomes destructive to our liberty!



The Second Amendment wasn’t designed to protect our right to hunt deer… it protects our right to “hunt” tyrants!_









						How The Second Amendment Works To Prevent Tyranny
					

The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today.




					thefederalist.com


----------



## Open Bolt (May 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – including the Second Amendment right.


That is incorrect.  Rights in America, including the Second Amendment, are absolute.  If a law is in conflict with them, then the law is unconstitutional.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Government has the authority, consistent with the will of the people and Constitutional case law, to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights – including the Second Amendment right.


Constitutional case law says that the government cannot prevent people from having enough firepower for effective self defense.

Constitutional case law says that the government cannot prevent people from having guns that there is no justification for restricting.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Limits and restrictions placed on the Second Amendment right by government is neither a ‘violation’ nor ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right.


That is incorrect.  If the limits and restrictions prevent people from having enough firepower for effective self defense, or prevent people from having guns that there is no justification for restricting, then the limits and restrictions violate the Second Amendment.


----------



## Blues Man (May 11, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Oh yes. I'd love to make a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
> 
> People need to know what responsibilities they have in society, because people are, in general, selfish. They take what they want and they don't put anything back. Society can only function if there's knowledge of responsibilities to society.
> 
> They need to know freedom, and all rights, have limits too.


The only responsibility people have to society is to not violate the rights of others.


----------



## Blues Man (May 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – including the Second Amendment right.
> 
> ...


No one said it was.

The Second only states a person is allowed to keep and bear (own and carry) firearms.

The second does not give anyone the right to fire those weapons or to shoot anyone.

In fact we have very strict laws regarding the discharge of firearms and we have strict definitions of murder and self defense.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.
> 
> There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.
> 
> ...


Our government is in a state of de facto tyranny right now. If armed revolution happens it will be justified.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The only responsibility people have to society is to not violate the rights of others.


That's a pretty high bar to clear.


----------



## Blues Man (May 11, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> That's a pretty high bar to clear.


It's actually pretty easy.

It's called minding your own fucking business and being considerate of others


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It's actually pretty easy.
> 
> It's called minding your own fucking business and being considerate of others


Easy for some, difficult for most.


----------



## Blues Man (May 11, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Easy for some, difficult for most.


Not difficult just not done


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Not difficult just not done


Sadly, screwing up another's life is institutionalized here. We do it ignorantly but with the best of intentions.


----------



## Blues Man (May 11, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Sadly, screwing up another's life is institutionalized here. We do it ignorantly but with the best of intentions.


Roads to hell and all that


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Roads to hell and all that


Yes.
Policies that reward the indigent at the expense of the industrious, and reward dishonesty and greed at the expense of honest work.  That reward stupidity at the expense of intelligence. The 'present evil world' that Jesus spoke of is still with us.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

dp


----------



## Blues Man (May 11, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Yes.
> Policies that reward the indigent at the expense of the industrious, and reward dishonesty and greed at the expense of honest work.  That reward stupidity at the expense of intelligence. The 'present evil world' that Jesus spoke of is still with us.


Those are just excuses.

Governmental policies do not dictate how people choose to treat each other.

No one controls your reactions to others but you.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Those are just excuses.
> 
> Governmental policies do not dictate how people choose to treat each other.
> 
> No one controls your reactions to others but you.


It's the government policies that set people against each other as well as hurt people directly.


----------



## Blues Man (May 11, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> It's the government policies that set people against each other as well as hurt people directly.


No they don't.

It's people who decide how they act not the government


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No they don't.
> 
> It's people who decide how they act not the government


The criminal justice system is a function of government. Crime is out of control because of government policies regarding crime, which sees it as an employment, enrichment, and advancement opportunity rather than a societal problem. 

You solve problems, you don't milk them for all they're worth.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The world watches America constantly scream on how Free they are and all these Rights you enjoy but no one else does, yet, they're  just things every living organism gets on with.


Can you own a handgun for self defense in your country?  No, you can't.  That makes me freer than you?


----------



## Blues Man (May 11, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> The criminal justice system is a function of government. Crime is out of control because of government policies regarding crime, which sees it as an employment, enrichment, and advancement opportunity rather than a societal problem.
> 
> You solve problems, you don't milk them for all they're worth.


People choose to be criminals therefore they choose how they treat other people.

Criminals violate the rights of others.

So just don;t be a fucking criminal.  Why do you think that is so difficult?


----------



## Woodznutz (May 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> People choose to be criminals therefore they choose how they treat other people.
> 
> Criminals violate the rights of others.
> 
> So just don;t be a fucking criminal.  Why do you think that is so difficult?


The best way for criminals to 'not be criminals' is to be locked up. Why is that so difficult for our leaders to understand. Even families that put on a show for the court on behalf of their thug relatives are often secretly happy that they are going to prison.

It would be bad enough if the criminal justice system didn't know what it is doing, but much worse if it does know what it's doing.


----------



## Blues Man (May 12, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> The best way for criminals to 'not be criminals' is to be locked up. Why is that so difficult for our leaders to understand. Even families that put on a show for the court on behalf of their thug relatives are often secretly happy that they are going to prison.
> 
> It would be bad enough if the criminal justice system didn't know what it is doing, but much worse if it does know what it's doing.


And none of that is relevant to what I stated a person's obligations to society are.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And none of that is relevant to what I stated a person's obligations to society are.


I like to dive deeper into the subject.


----------



## Blues Man (May 12, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> People have greater obligations than just to not be a criminal.



And I never said they didn't.

I said the only obligation any person has to society is to not violate the rights of others and to obey the laws of that society.

You seem to want to make that more complicated than it is by implying that others can control your behavior in making these choices.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And I never said they didn't.
> 
> I said the only obligation any person has to society is to not violate the rights of others and to obey the laws of that society.
> 
> You seem to want to make that more complicated than it is by implying that others can control your behavior in making these choices.


We're talking about a_ society,_ not just a bunch of people that have no common interest.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 12, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Can you own a handgun for self defense in your country?  No, you can't.  That makes me freer than you?


Yes, if the handgun is of a certain length, and you have a firearms certificate to comply with the law, and it's shown in court that you used it as reasonable force as per the law.

Next question derp.

You own a hand gun, but you are naked and in the shower, how did your hand gun help?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, if the handgun is of a certain length, and you have a firearms certificate to comply with the law, and it's shown in court that you used it as reasonable force as per the law.
> 
> Next question derp.
> 
> You own a hand gun, but you are naked and in the shower, how did your hand gun help?


Handgun ownership has been banned in the UK.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 12, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Handgun ownership has been banned in the UK.


No they haven't. Handguns 12 inch, 30 cms, in length are legal to own. You utter thick mong.

You are American, your knowledge beyond your borders is below zero, get a passport and get your sorry fat arse moving.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 12, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe , the gun laws in the UK tries to make the types of firearms and those deemed suitable to own/use them as safe as possible. Many Brits just can't be bothered in owning a gun. You're an American gun nut, you need them because you have an obsession in blasting away the kid that dared kick the dandelion on your property. People live in the UK, the population experiences, per capita, per 100,000 people, less crime and less violent crime than in America, yet, people here don't have the feeling they need a gun to save themselves from this imaginary shite you lot go through.

By the sounds of it, you wouldn't survive living here, you're too much of a pussy. Then you have the retard stupidity in trying to tell me how gun laws work in the UK. What a fucking bellend. The worst person to own a gun is the person who's willing to shoot someone. You call that person a good guy, that's why you guys are fucked up with gun stats.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, if the handgun is of a certain length,


If a handgun has to be longer than a rifle, then it isn't a handgun.

Not that anyone in the UK is allowed to have an effective rifle either.




Captain Caveman said:


> People live in the UK, the population experiences, per capita, per 100,000 people, less crime and less violent crime than in America,


I doubt that.




Captain Caveman said:


> Then you have the retard stupidity in trying to tell me how gun laws work in the UK.


Facts remain facts even when those facts are inconvenient to serfs.




Captain Caveman said:


> The worst person to own a gun is the person who's willing to shoot someone.


Are your armed police officers willing to shoot people?




Captain Caveman said:


> You call that person a good guy, that's why you guys are fucked up with gun stats.


Our gun stats are fine.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 12, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> If a handgun has to be longer than a rifle, then it isn't a handgun.
> 
> Not that anyone in the UK is allowed to have an effective rifle either.
> 
> ...


Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit. Handguns and rifles in the UK have certain dimensions etc.. not just just willful crap you follow. Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing, per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't). 

The police are made up of police and certain officers trained to use firearms. You_re police are fucking inept, all have a gun and shoot anything that moves because they're thick as fuck.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit. Handguns and rifles in the UK have certain dimensions etc.. not just just willful crap you follow. Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing, per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't).
> 
> The police are made up of police and certain officers trained to use firearms. You_re police are fucking inept, all have a gun and shoot anything that moves because they're thick as fuck.


Brits should have zero gun deaths


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe , the gun laws in the UK tries to make the types of firearms and those deemed suitable to own/use them as safe as possible. Many Brits just can't be bothered in owning a gun. You're an American gun nut, you need them because you have an obsession in blasting away the kid that dared kick the dandelion on your property. People live in the UK, the population experiences, per capita, per 100,000 people, less crime and less violent crime than in America, yet, people here don't have the feeling they need a gun to save themselves from this imaginary shite you lot go through.
> 
> By the sounds of it, you wouldn't survive living here, you're too much of a pussy. Then you have the retard stupidity in trying to tell me how gun laws work in the UK. What a fucking bellend. The worst person to own a gun is the person who's willing to shoot someone. You call that person a good guy, that's why you guys are fucked up with gun stats.


You've been a subject so long, you're totally dependent on the government for everything, even your own personal protection.

But, accusing me of wanting to murder a kid really doesn't strengthen your argument.  In fact, it weakens it.  I guess you had to launch into slander because you got caught lying.

Be content with your country having the 3rd highest overall crime rate in the world...lol.  Y'all are ahead of Mexico.  There's something to be proud of.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 12, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brits should have zero gun deaths


They should have zero murders, according to Captain Caveman's logic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> They should have zero murders, according to Captain Caveman's logic.


That's correct


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The only responsibility people have to society is to not violate the rights of others.


Actually, the people have no such responsibility.

The concept of rights concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities; private individuals can’t ‘violate’ the rights of other private individuals.

Only government has the potential to violate rights.

Now, it could be said that people have the responsibility to follow the Constitution and its case law, to not use the authority of the state to violate others’ rights.

And no rights are ‘violated’ when government enacts limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment consistent with its case law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, the people have no such responsibility.
> 
> The concept of rights concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities; private individuals can’t ‘violate’ the rights of other private individuals.
> 
> ...


Liar








						3 men convicted in Ahmaud Arbery's murder found guilty of federal hate crimes
					

Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan were convicted of murder and other charges in November.




					www.cbsnews.com
				



On Tuesday, a jury made up of eight White people, three Black people and one Hispanic person convicted the three men of violating Arbery's civil rights and targeting him because he was Black.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No one said it was.


Actually, many conservatives say just that.

See posts #526 and #547 as examples.

Rightwing Second Amendment absolutists will often lie about background checks or carry permits being an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, that’s why most on the right have come to loathe _Heller_ and its holding that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, many conservatives say just that.
> 
> See posts #526 and #547 as examples.
> 
> ...


Hunter Biden lied


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2022)

Batcat said:


> The founders had just overthrown their British government and so valued the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government if the government they created failed to represent them fairly. In order to be able to do so they realized they needed to own firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that codifies insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment does not ‘authorize’ private citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government predicated on the subjective, incorrect, and wrongheaded notion that the government has become ‘tyrannical’:

‘Justice Scalia, writing in _Heller_, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant *the preposterousness of insurrectionism*. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’





__





						The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"
					

By Mike Dorf   As I  reported here , a few months ago I debated gun rights advocate Alan Gura about the future of gun regulation in the U.S....




					www.dorfonlaw.org
				




The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘deter crime,’ not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Our government is in a state of de facto tyranny right now. If armed revolution happens it will be justified.


The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.

See post #595.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that codifies insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment does not ‘authorize’ private citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government predicated on the subjective, incorrect, and wrongheaded notion that the government has become ‘tyrannical’:
> 
> ‘Justice Scalia, writing in _Heller_, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant *the preposterousness of insurrectionism*. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’
> 
> ...


Whiskey rebellion


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.
> 
> See post #595.


That is the purpose of the second amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit.


He’s a conservative.

Conservatives are also dishonest – lying about and misrepresenting gun laws in the UK is an example.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> He’s a conservative.
> 
> Conservatives are also dishonest – lying about and misrepresenting gun laws in the UK is an example.


You're a lying sack of shit


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> See post #595.



  See post 315.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> See post 315.


Bob you know how Clayton loves to make wild ass unknowledgeable claims.


----------



## Batcat (May 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that codifies insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment does not ‘authorize’ private citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government predicated on the subjective, incorrect, and wrongheaded notion that the government has become ‘tyrannical’:
> 
> ‘Justice Scalia, writing in _Heller_, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant *the preposterousness of insurrectionism*. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’
> 
> ...


It is simply foolish to say the founders of our nation who had just engaged in an uprising against a tyrannical government would be opposed to allowing citizens in the future to do the same if the new government turned tyrannical.  If they had really wanted their new government to be difficult to overthrow they would have implemented some form of gun control. Instead they guaranteed the right of a citizen to own firearms in the Bill of Rights. 

Tanks are wonderful but eventually the rulers have to get out of the tanks and rule. We definitely had the superior army in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and yet in the end we lost. It is easy but not wise to underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare. 

In passing we are nowhere close to needing an uprising to overthrow a tyrannical government but we are slowly moving in that direction. 






						When Guerrilla Warfare Can Succeed  — And When It Will Fail – Investing Video & Audio Jay Taylor Media
					






					jaytaylormedia.com


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 12, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bob you know how Clayton loves to make wild ass unknowledgeable claims.



  Well, I could speculate about a donkey that is not domesticated, but then I would just be making a wild-ass guess.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit.


That is incorrect.  Everything that I said is true.




Captain Caveman said:


> Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing,


Gun stats are hardly relevant.

I have looked up US and UK crime stats before, but that was 20 years ago.  I am not interested enough to bother looking up current stats again.

You can look them up if you want to bother.  If neither one of us wants to bother looking up current stats, then perhaps the issue of our comparative crime violence stats isn't that important to us.




Captain Caveman said:


> per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't).


Insults are a poor substitute for a compelling argument.




Captain Caveman said:


> The police are made up of police and certain officers trained to use firearms.


Are those "certain trained officers" willing to shoot people??


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 12, 2022)

Batcat said:


> It is simply foolish to say the founders of our nation who had just engaged in an uprising against a tyrannical government would be opposed to allowing citizens in the future to do the same if the new government turned tyrannical. If they had really wanted their new government to be difficult to overthrow they would have implemented some form of gun control. Instead they guaranteed the right of a citizen to own firearms in the Bill of Rights.



_“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”_ — Thomas Jefferson​



Batcat said:


> Tanks are wonderful…



  You're welcome.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> no rights are ‘violated’ when government enacts limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment consistent with its case law.


That is incorrect.  If case law allows a right to be violated, those "allowed violations" are very much violations.

But do note that current case law says that people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

Current case law also says that people have the right to have any gun that the government has no compelling government interest in restricting.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rightwing Second Amendment absolutists will often lie about background checks or carry permits being an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.


Having a different opinion than you do does not make someone a liar.

Having an honest disagreement with you about the facts also does not make anyone a lair.

Now, given the nature of facts, if you guys disagree on the facts, at least one party is likely to be wrong.  But being wrong does not make someone a liar.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, that’s why most on the right have come to loathe _Heller_ and its holding that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.


Some people on the right may loathe Heller.  But there are also plenty on the right who remain delighted by the ruling.


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> We're talking about a_ society,_ not just a bunch of people that have no common interest.


And what part about a person's obligation to society isn't about society?

And FYI all societies are comprised of people with different interests which is why all societies have rules and laws.


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, the people have no such responsibility.
> 
> The concept of rights concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities; private individuals can’t ‘violate’ the rights of other private individuals.
> 
> ...



I don't know anyone who doesn't think murder is a violation of the victim's rights


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, many conservatives say just that.
> 
> See posts #526 and #547 as examples.
> 
> ...


The second is limited 

There is only a right to keep and bear, or own and carry,

There is no right to discharge a weapon and no right to shoot any person.  In fact there are very clear very strict laws in every state city and town regarding where and when a firearm can be discharged.

We already have clear federal laws defining who and who cannot legally own firearms and those laws are constitutional.

It's you people that want to keep passing more and more laws that are the problem because all we have to do is enforce the laws we have but we refuse to do so.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I don't know anyone who doesn't think murder is a violation of the victim's rights



  You openly defend the murder of unborn children, and refuse to acknowledge it for the egregious human rights violation that it is.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We already have clear federal laws defining who and who cannot legally own firearms and those laws are constitutional.



  Where in _“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”_ do you find a Constitutional basis for government to infringe the right being affirmed?


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You openly defend the murder of unborn children, and refuse to acknowledge it for the egregious human rights violation that it is.



A zygote is a potential person not a person YET.

I have always said viability outside the womb is where the line should be drawn.


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Where in _“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”_ do you find a Constitutional basis for government to infringe the right being affirmed?


HAs SCOTUS struck down those federal gun laws?

No?

Get back to me when they do.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 13, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No they haven't. Handguns 12 inch, 30 cms, in length are legal to own. You utter thick mong.
> 
> You are American, your knowledge beyond your borders is below zero, get a passport and get your sorry fat arse moving.


And you can carry a handgun in public?  Why hell no...lol. You can't even carry a pair of pliers in public.  How's all that freedom working for you?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> A zygote is a potential person not a person YET.



  A lie does not become truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 13, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> A lie does not become truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.


I think you guys are arguing opinion, not truth vs falsehood (or lie).

But carry on.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The second is limited
> 
> There is only a right to keep and bear, or own and carry,
> 
> ...


In a lawful manner you do have the right to  discharge a firearm example in self-defense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 13, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I think you guys are arguing opinion, not truth vs falsehood (or lie).
> 
> But carry on.


Well someone can say something and it be wrong such as give in correct information. That's just a mistake. But when they keep repeating the false information that's when it becomes a lie.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 13, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I think you guys are arguing opinion, not truth vs falsehood (or lie).
> 
> But carry on.



_“Opinion”_ is often a cover for lies.

  If I say that it is my _“opinion”_ that two plus two equals ten, then I am not expressing a legitimate opinion, but an outright lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 13, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> _“Opinion”_ is often a cover for lies.
> 
> If I say that it is my _“opinion”_ that two plus two equals ten, then I am not expressing a legitimate opinion, but an outright lie.


Or you could just be bad at math. First time it's a mistake. Repeating it moves to a lie.


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> And you can carry a handgun in public?  Why hell no...lol. You can't even carry a pair of pliers in public.  How's all that freedom working for you?


I carry concealed all the time in public.

I even ignore the no guns allowed signs


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In a lawful manner you do have the right to  discharge a firearm example in self-defense.


And that is always part of any state or city gun laws.

BUT the burden of proof in a self defense case is on the shooter.  There is no presumption of innocence.


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> A lie does not become truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.



Tell that to the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And that is always part of any state or city gun laws.
> 
> BUT the burden of proof in a self defense case is on the shooter.  There is no presumption of innocence.


I was pointing out that a person does he ave a right to discharge a firearm.


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I was pointing out that a person does he ave a right to discharge a firearm.


In one instance that is always taken into account in all states cities and towns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> In one instance that is always taken into account in all states cities and towns.


You still have the right in a lawful manner.


----------



## Blues Man (May 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You still have the right in a lawful manner.


And your state city or town decide what those lawful manners are so the state city or town ordinances are what allow you to fire your weapons.  The Second Amendment does not state that there is a right to fire a gun it only addresses ownership and carrying of firearms.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Not difficult just not done


Good point.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Those are just excuses.
> 
> Governmental policies do not dictate how people choose to treat each other.
> 
> No one controls your reactions to others but you.


 That leaves us with a lot of reactions.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.
> 
> See post #595.


Did you just strip the 2Amendment of the 'citizen army', the militia?


----------



## Woodznutz (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And what part about a person's obligation to society isn't about society?
> 
> And FYI all societies are comprised of people with different interests which is why all societies have rules and laws.


 
People have moral obligations, not just legal ones.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I carry concealed all the time in public.
> 
> I even ignore the no guns allowed signs


You live in England?


----------



## Woodznutz (May 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I carry concealed all the time in public.
> 
> I even ignore the no guns allowed signs


----------



## Blues Man (May 14, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> People have moral obligations, not just legal ones.


Morals are relative and changing constantly


----------



## Blues Man (May 14, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You live in England?


Why the fuck would I want to live in England?

I refuse to bend the knee to a fucking monarch


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Why the fuck would I want to live in England?
> 
> I refuse to bend the knee to a fucking monarch


I'm referring to England, not The United States.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Morals are relative and changing constantly


And that's a problem.

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his *own* *eyes...*


----------



## Blues Man (May 14, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> And that's a problem.
> 
> Proverbs 12:15
> The way of a fool is right in his *own* *eyes...*


No it's just a fact of life.

That's easy to see when you get away from the need to label everything.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No it's just a fact of life.


And the problems it causes are a fact of life without morals.


----------



## Blues Man (May 14, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> And the problems it causes are a fact of life without morals.


We have morals they are just relative and change with society.

It has always been so and it will always be so.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We have morals they are just relative and change with society.
> 
> It has always been so and it will always be so.


The good news is that not everyone does this. It would be a bloodbath if all abandoned traditional morals.


----------



## Blues Man (May 14, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> The good news is that not everyone does this. It would be a bloodbath if all abandoned traditional morals.



I disagree.

To say that there is a universal code of morals implies a universal authority and we have never had that.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I disagree.
> 
> To say that there is a universal code of morals implies a universal authority and we have never had that.


God's code of morality would set us free from the disaster that our own idea of morals has wrought.


----------



## Blues Man (May 14, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> God's code of morality would set us free from the disaster that our own idea of morals has wrought.


Nope.

No one has proven to me that any gods exist.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Nope.
> 
> No one has proven to me that any gods exist.


You either believe in God or you don't, on your own.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> To say that there is a universal code of morals implies a universal authority and we have never had that.



  That would be the God who created this world, and us on it; who has given us the true moral standards, to the degree that we have been ready and willing to accept them.

  Those who reject Him, who reject his morals, are subjects of Satan, and fall under his control.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Nope.
> 
> No one has proven to me that any gods exist.



Psalms 14:
 *The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.* *They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.*
 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
 *They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.*
 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.
 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge.
 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> You either believe in God or you don't, on your own.


There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

There is no omnipotent extraterrestrial deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of humans, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be obeyed lest transgressors are consigned to eternal damnation.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.
> 
> There is no omnipotent extraterrestrial deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of humans, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be obeyed lest transgressors are consigned to eternal damnation.


That's like seeing tracks but concluding that there is no deer standing in them somewhere down the trail.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.
> 
> There is no omnipotent extraterrestrial deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of humans, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be obeyed lest transgressors are consigned to eternal damnation.



  You'll have your chance, soon enough, to tell Him that to His face.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  If case law allows a right to be violated, those "allowed violations" are very much violations.
> 
> But do note that current case law says that people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense.
> 
> ...


‘Congress may require background checks of the sort currently codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-926, because the Second Amendment permits laws prohibiting “possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. Congress may limit the number of firearms individuals may purchase in any given period, because the Second Amendment permits “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 626-27. Congress may ban private possession of machine guns, as it did in a law signed by President Reagan and currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), because the Second Amendment permits prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’









						The Second Amendment and Federal Law
					

By Mike Dorf    **Updated: Here's the video link  or just watch below:     This afternoon I'll be debating Alan Gura about the future of gun...




					www.dorfonlaw.org
				




The Second Amendment is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ – government has the authority to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law, where such measures neither ‘violate’ nor ‘infringe upon’ the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The second is limited
> 
> There is only a right to keep and bear, or own and carry,
> 
> ...


Wrong.

Current firearm regulatory measures are being enforced – it’s a lie to claim otherwise.

And some additional measures are appropriate and warranted, such as a UBC; other measures are not, such as AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.

No, the problem is conservatives who refuse to address the issue of gun crime and violence, who refuse to explore potential solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

And when anyone tries to broach the subject of addressing gun crime and violence absent regulating firearms, conservatives shout down any good faith discussion and debate with lies and demagoguery about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’

An example:

A conservative started a thread a while ago about those under 21 being ‘prohibited’ from owing guns; that those under 21 would be ‘left defenseless’ because they wouldn’t be able to possess firearms.

That’s a lie.

The law concerns solely those under 21 not being allowed to purchase firearms from an FFL – an 18- to 20-year-old is at liberty to purchase a firearm in a private face-to-face intrastate transaction with a fellow state resident or be gifted a firearm from another adult; those under 21 would not be left ‘disarmed’ and ‘defenseless.’

It’s this sort of dishonesty from the right that contributes to the problem.

"An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law."





__





						May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same state? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
					

An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law. A federal firearms licensee may not...




					www.atf.gov


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> And that's a problem.
> 
> Proverbs 12:15
> The way of a fool is right in his *own* *eyes...*


No, it’s not.

The problem is the Christo-fascist right seeking to compel conformity and punish dissent by attempting to codify wrongheaded, subjective religious dogma into secular law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2022)

Batcat said:


> It is simply foolish to say the founders of our nation who had just engaged in an uprising against a tyrannical government would be opposed to allowing citizens in the future to do the same if the new government turned tyrannical.  If they had really wanted their new government to be difficult to overthrow they would have implemented some form of gun control. Instead they guaranteed the right of a citizen to own firearms in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Tanks are wonderful but eventually the rulers have to get out of the tanks and rule. We definitely had the superior army in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and yet in the end we lost. It is easy but not wise to underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare.
> 
> ...


“Its main problem [with insurrectionism] was and remains the fact that permitting people to keep enough weapons to fight the modern federal government makes no sense. Perhaps in the late 18th century, private arms ownership could be thought to be a bulwark against tyranny, but those days are long gone. For one thing, Madison imagined that organized state militias, *not private citizens in their private capacity,* *would fight the federal government*, but at least since the Militia Act of 1903 placed state units of the National Guard under dual state/federal auspices, that has not been a remotely realistic prospect. And private citizens stand no chance of defeating the federal armed forces in a real conflict. Such self-appointed patriots do, however, have the capacity to cause real harm, as was demonstrated by the likes of Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement.”





__





						The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"
					

By Mike Dorf   As I  reported here , a few months ago I debated gun rights advocate Alan Gura about the future of gun regulation in the U.S....




					www.dorfonlaw.org
				




The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘deter crime,’ not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We have morals they are just relative and change with society.
> 
> It has always been so and it will always be so.


We have morals the creation of man, just as flawed and capricious as man – in no manner ‘imbued’ with divine authority, completely devoid of secular authority.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Its main problem [with insurrectionism] was and remains the fact that permitting people to keep enough weapons to fight the modern federal government makes no sense. Perhaps in the late 18th century, private arms ownership could be thought to be a bulwark against tyranny, but those days are long gone. For one thing, Madison imagined that organized state militias, *not private citizens in their private capacity,* *would fight the federal government*, but at least since the Militia Act of 1903 placed state units of the National Guard under dual state/federal auspices, that has not been a remotely realistic prospect. And private citizens stand no chance of defeating the federal armed forces in a real conflict. Such self-appointed patriots do, however, have the capacity to cause real harm, as was demonstrated by the likes of Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, it does deter crime.  You'll notice that in areas where there is a high rate of gun ownership, there is a low crime rate.

Nobody is talking about overthrowing the government.  Stop repeating that lie...lol


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, it’s not.
> 
> The problem is the Christo-fascist right seeking to compel conformity and punish dissent by attempting to codify wrongheaded, subjective religious dogma into secular law.


Where it really counts God's law and man's law are pretty much in agreement. The difference is that God is serious about it.

It's like the laws of health and prosperity. Most agree but only those who actually follow them are successful.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to* ‘deter crime,’* not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.


A person can use a firearm/deadly force to protect another from imminent danger in many states.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Current firearm regulatory measures are being enforced – it’s a lie to claim otherwise.
> 
> ...


Criminals need to be regulated, not firearms. True conservatives understand this.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’


All rights are limited.  Otherwise there would only be a single right, and it would be a right to do anything.

The Constitution is absolute however.  Anything that conflicts with the Constitution is unconstitutional.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And some additional measures are appropriate and warranted, such as a UBC; other measures are not, such as AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.


I concur.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And private citizens stand no chance of defeating the federal armed forces in a real conflict.


I think recent military history shows that guerrilla warfare stands a chance of winning.

I'm not a "pro-insurrectionist" however.


-------------------------------------------------------------


Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Nobody is talking about overthrowing the government.  Stop repeating that lie...lol


Some conservatives do like argue for it.  Not everyone does though.

It's not an issue that I like to argue, although I find claims that "civilians have no chance" to be contrary to recent military history.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Actually, it does deter crime.  You'll notice that in areas where there is a high rate of gun ownership, there is a low crime rate.
> 
> Nobody is talking about overthrowing the government.  Stop repeating that lie...lol


“Nobody on the Court in _Heller _endorsed the insurrectionist theory as a guide to the contemporary meaning or implementation of the Second Amendment.”_ ibid_

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that endorses the wrongheaded notion of insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment doesn’t authorize private citizens to overthrow the Federal government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Nobody on the Court in _Heller _endorsed the insurrectionist theory as a guide to the contemporary meaning or implementation of the Second Amendment.”_ ibid_
> 
> There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that endorses the wrongheaded notion of insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment doesn’t authorize private citizens to overthrow the Federal government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’


And no one is advocating such an excercise of the 2nd Amendment.  Stop lying.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 14, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I think recent military history shows that guerrilla warfare stands a chance of winning.
> 
> I'm not a "pro-insurrectionist" however.
> 
> ...


A small handful of crackpots talk about it, but isn't anywhere close to being mainstream.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Congress may require background checks of the sort currently codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-926, because the Second Amendment permits laws prohibiting “possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. Congress may limit the number of firearms individuals may purchase in any given period, because the Second Amendment permits “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 626-27. Congress may ban private possession of machine guns, as it did in a law signed by President Reagan and currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), because the Second Amendment permits prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’



  It is bizarre how the Justices were able to find that the Second Amendment _“permits”_ all sorts of exceptions that are nowhere stated nor implied in it nor anywhere else in the Constitution.

  The Second Amendment is pretty clear, and absolute.  It states a purpose, identifies a right as belonging to the people, and forbids that right from being infringed.

  Where in the Second Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is there any statement that permits any part of government to infringe the right which the Second Amendment says shall not be infringed?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 14, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> And no one is advocating such an excercise of the 2nd Amendment.  Stop lying.



  You might as well ask a fly to stop eating shit as ask C_Clayton_Jones to stop lying.


----------



## Blues Man (May 15, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> You either believe in God or you don't, on your own.



Typical simplistic duality.


----------



## Blues Man (May 15, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> That would be the God who created this world, and us on it; who has given us the true moral standards, to the degree that we have been ready and willing to accept them.
> 
> Those who reject Him, who reject his morals, are subjects of Satan, and fall under his control.


I have seen no proof that gods exist. 

Morals have evolved as societies have evolved just as religions have evolved as societies have evolved


----------



## Blues Man (May 15, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Psalms 14:
> 
> *The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.* *They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.*
> The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
> ...



The bible isn;t proof of anything as it was written by men


----------



## Blues Man (May 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Current firearm regulatory measures are being enforced – it’s a lie to claim otherwise.
> 
> ...


They are not being enforced.

If they were every single person caught illegally possessing a gun would face federal charges and mandatory 5 year sentences in federal prison.

Gun charges are usually the first to be dropped in any plea deal









						In Delaware, 71% of gun charges are dropped
					

While 71 percent of charges are dropped, state prosecutors say convictions of some sort in firearms cases at 87 percent.



					www.delawareonline.com
				











						Exclusive: As violence rises, prosecutors bargain away gun charges
					

The most severe gun charge, possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, is dismissed in plea bargains 41 percent of the time, Star investigation finds.



					www.indystar.com
				





			https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/
		









						Arrests in Baltimore for illegal guns often lead to dropped charges or little jail time
					

As Baltimore police and prosecutors race to get gun-wielding criminals off the streets, many of the charges aren't sticking or defendants are only jailed for months — not years, as allowed under the law.




					www.baltimoresun.com
				





			https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/felony-weapons-charges-dropped-by-the-state-can-feds-still-prosecute-49058


----------



## Woodznutz (May 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Typical simplistic duality.


Is there some middle ground that I don't know about?


----------



## Blues Man (May 16, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Is there some middle ground that I don't know about?


 there is no middle because there is only one universe and it is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong , cruel nor kind.

It simply is

When you name the "good" you necessarily create the "bad"


----------



## Woodznutz (May 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> there is no middle because there is only one universe and it is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong , cruel nor kind.
> 
> It simply is
> 
> When you name the "good" you necessarily create the "bad"


In the human realm there is clearly good and evil.


----------



## Blues Man (May 16, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> In the human realm there is clearly good and evil.


Good and evil are human constructs.

Like I said you create the "bad" when you name the "good"


----------



## Woodznutz (May 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Good and evil are human constructs.
> 
> Like I said you create the "bad" when you name the "good"


They are necessary constructs. Imagine life without them. 

"I don't like black people, think I'll go kill a few this morning. Later I think I'll go bowling."


----------



## Blues Man (May 16, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> They are necessary constructs. Imagine life without them.
> 
> "I don't like black people, think I'll go kill a few this morning. Later I think I'll go bowling."


No they aren't.

How did that construct stop any Black person from getting shot in NY ?

It didn't.

So how is it necessary when it does nothing?


----------



## Woodznutz (May 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No they aren't.
> 
> How did that construct stop any Black person from getting shot in NY ?
> 
> ...


 . The current black crime wave is reflective of the nature you describe. Imagine it across all demographics. It would be a bloodbath. Thankfully most people have a strong sense of right and wrong.


----------



## Blues Man (May 16, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> . The current black crime wave is reflective of the nature you describe. Imagine it across all demographics. It would be a bloodbath. Thankfully most people have a strong sense of right and wrong.


There is crime across all demographics.  Where have you been?

And how does that address mu point about the labels of "good" and "bad" being unnecessary because these label do nothing to stop anything from happening?


----------



## hadit (May 16, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So that makes it a right then, does it? Anything that humans desire, must be a right?
> 
> Humans desire a home, they desire food, they desire all sorts of things. So these are all rights then?


It ceases to be a right when it requires someone else to take action to give it to you.

Right to free speech = you can stand on a street corner and bellow whatever you want about a politician.
Not right to free speech = demanding that the city set up a sound system and stage and TV cameras broadcast what you have to say.

Right to bear arms = you can buy and own a firearm.
Not right to bear arms = demanding that the government provide you a firearm.

That's why there is no right to healthcare, because healthcare requires people to manufacture drugs and surgical implements, build hospitals, train doctors and nurses, etc.

A right is something you cannot be prevented from doing.


----------



## hadit (May 16, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit. Handguns and rifles in the UK have certain dimensions etc.. not just just willful crap you follow. Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing, per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't).
> 
> The police are made up of police and certain officers trained to use firearms. You_re police are fucking inept, all have a gun and shoot anything that moves because they're thick as fuck.


It appears that you are manifestly ignorant about life in the United States.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> There is crime across all demographics.  Where have you been?


It's the nature of the crime and of the criminals.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 16, 2022)

hadit said:


> It appears that you are manifestly ignorant about life in the United States.


It appears you're ignorant of the whole planet.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2022)

hadit said:


> It ceases to be a right when it requires someone else to take action to give it to you.
> 
> Right to free speech = you can stand on a street corner and bellow whatever you want about a politician.
> Not right to free speech = demanding that the city set up a sound system and stage and TV cameras broadcast what you have to say.
> ...



"It ceases to be a right when it requires someone else to take action to give it to you."

Er... no. All rights require someone to take action so that you can have it. One look at countries with no rights, like China, show this. 

Rights are.... get this.... LIMITATIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT. 

The Magna Carta, where it all started in 1215. It was a power grab by the rich and powerful in England against the monarch King John. 
Then came the English Bill of Rights which was another power grab. It limited the power of the new monarchs that the rich and powerful were putting on the throne.

Then came the US bill of rights. A part of the process of taking power from the English monarch and giving it to Americans. These Americans were worried about power. Hence why there is a separation of powers in the US Constitution and then the Bill of Rights.

The right to free speech is literally a limit on what the government can do to people. A person can stand on a street corner and shout whatever they like. Unless of course it's libel, treason etc etc. 
A person can demand the government sets up a sound system for them. Doesn't mean the government is going to provide it, but that falls right in to freedom of speech.

When it comes to guns, the right to KEEP ARMS is the right to own guns. The right to BEAR ARMS is the right to be in the militia. 

It makes sense. Firstly because this is what the Founding Fathers said, and secondly because this is how you protect the militia, which is the ultimate check and balance on the government.



			Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
		


_"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."_
The clause being spoken about.

Mr Gerry said: _"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_

He also said _"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."_

So, he said "_bear arms_" and then said "_militia duty_" to mean the same thing.

"_Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."_

Mr Jackson used "_bear arms_" as "_render military service_"

There's plenty of evidence to show that "bear arms" is essentially the right to be in the militia. For example the National Guard was created alongside the "unorganized militia". This was because if the National Guard were the only militia, then individuals would be able to demand service in that militia. So they made a militia which everyone was in, but was totally pointless and didn't get in the way of the National Guard, just to get around the bear arms clause of the 2A. 

A right in NOT something you can't be prevented from doing because all rights have limitations.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> It's the nature of the crime and of the criminals.


So it just is.

There is no good or evil about it.

You want to deny human nature


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Congress may require background checks of the sort currently codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-926, because the Second Amendment permits laws prohibiting “possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. Congress may limit the number of firearms individuals may purchase in any given period, because the Second Amendment permits “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 626-27. Congress may ban private possession of machine guns, as it did in a law signed by President Reagan and currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), because the Second Amendment permits prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The plain language of the 2nd Amendment is a ban on federal authority.  When it comes to the FedGov, the 2nd is unlimited and absolute.  ZERO federal authority.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> "It ceases to be a right when it requires someone else to take action to give it to you."
> 
> Er... no. All rights require someone to take action so that you can have it. One look at countries with no rights, like China, show this.
> 
> ...


All that bullshit diatribe to IGNORE the word "KEEP"

Next


----------



## Woodznutz (May 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So it just is.
> 
> There is no good or evil about it.
> 
> You want to deny human nature


Of course not. Human nature is a mix of good and evil.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Of course not. Human nature is a mix of good and evil.


No human nature just is what it is.

All human behavior exists on a continuum therefore all human behavior occurs simply as a result of humans existing.

even without the labels of "good" or "evil" all those behaviors would still occur at pretty much the exact same frequency.

Therefore it is neither good nor bad it just simply is.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No human nature just is what it is.
> 
> All human behavior exists on a continuum therefore all human behavior occurs simply as a result of humans existing.
> 
> ...


Why are those terms in our lexicon? 
Why do we reward what we deem good and punish what we deem evil?
Good and evil seem to be actual social constructs.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Why are those terms in our lexicon?
> Why do we reward what we deem good and punish what we deem evil?
> Good and evil seem to be actual social constructs.


Why is any word in our lexicon?

We invented them 

And yes they are social constructs but good and evil do not exist in nature.

We are part of nature

The universe is neither good nor bad

We are part of the universe

We create evil when we name the good

It is our penchant for duality that makes this so.

We like to fall back on duality because it makes it easier for us to make sense of the universe but there is no truth in it.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Why is any word in our lexicon?
> 
> We invented them
> 
> ...


That's an interesting way to look at it.


----------

