# NRA Children's Museum



## candycorn (Jul 16, 2022)

Seems Fitting to honor the only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment:









						A Mile-Long Procession Of Buses Carried Items From School Shooting Victims To Ted Cruz’s House
					

The 4,368 empty seats are meant to honor the number of children killed by gun violence since 2020.View Entire Post ›




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## fncceo (Jul 16, 2022)

Imagine the carbon footprint from a mile-long procession of buses.

I wonder how those people sleep at night.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 16, 2022)

Oh look! Here's someone who actually believes that the "only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment" is school shootings.

Isn't that cute?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 16, 2022)

Doesn't matter to Right Wing Religious Nut Jobs, they only care about fetuses.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 16, 2022)

I'll just leave this here. Isn't this a fine bunch of law-abiding, white, Christian, Trump-supporting, gun-owning, NRA members?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Seems Fitting to honor the only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What does the NRA have to do with that?   They train first responders and civilians to use firearms legally and safely.....and many NRA trained individuals have saved lives with their guns........


----------



## bodecea (Jul 16, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Oh look! Here's someone who actually believes that the "only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment" is school shootings.
> 
> Isn't that cute?


Well, it's certainly a byproduct that the NRA doesn't care about.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2022)

bodecea said:


> Well, it's certainly a byproduct that the NRA doesn't care about.




No.....considering, again, the NRA trains police and military and civilians......they are doing more to stop all shootings than the democrat party is as the democrat party actually attacks the police and releases repeat gun offenders over and over again.....


----------



## JGalt (Jul 16, 2022)

bodecea said:


> Well, it's certainly a byproduct that the NRA doesn't care about.



It's not the NRA's responsibility to prevent unhinged individuals from committing gun crimes. They promote the safe, responsible, and legal use of firearms.

It's your government's responsibility to protect unhinged individuals from committing gun crimes, and they can't even do that. They don't enforces the myriad of laws already on the books, they don't prosecute those who do break the law, and they continually try to deny the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with firearms.

So don't try to blame the NRA. They are nothing more than a trigger word that send leftist idiots into a tizzy. Fix your fucking government instead. And keep your grubby mitts off my guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2022)

JGalt said:


> It's not the NRA's responsibility to prevent unhinged individuals from committing gun crimes. They promote the safe, responsible, and legal use of firearms.
> 
> It's your government's responsibility to protect unhinged individuals from committing gun crimes, and they can't even do that. They don't enforces the myriad of laws already on the books, they don't prosecute those who do break the law, and they continually try to deny the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with firearms.
> 
> So don't try to blame the NRA. They are nothing more than a trigger word that send leftist idiots into a tizzy. Fix your fucking government instead.




Their god, government, failed them and this is simply a way to distract this fools from that truth...


----------



## candycorn (Jul 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> What does the NRA have to do with that?   They train first responders and civilians to use firearms legally and safely.....and many NRA trained individuals have saved lives with their guns........


And lobby Congress to make sure anyone can buy any weapon they want no questions asked.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 16, 2022)

JGalt said:


> It's not the NRA's responsibility to prevent unhinged individuals from committing gun crimes.


But they see it as their responsibility to make sure dickless wonders like yourself with obvious mental issues can buy as many guns as they want.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jul 16, 2022)

Imagine if black families had had AR15s, in the late 1860's when he Democrats in the KKK were attacking them, then later in the 1920's, when a pro-Klan movie hyped by leader of the progressive movement President Woodrow Wilson (D-New Jersey) brought on a Klan revival.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 16, 2022)

candycorn said:


> But they see it as their responsibility to make sure dickless wonders like yourself with obvious mental issues can buy as many guns as they want.



Go fuck yourself, flat-chested potential transvestite. So now you're jealous about the size of my dick or something? I'd match it any day against your impotent little stub. And you fancy yourself to be a psychologist too, right? A mentally-prolapsed individual like yourself, is in no condition to evaluate anyone's mental capabilities.

So how many firearms have you ever bought? How many background checks have you ever passed in order to purchase one? Could you even pass a federal background check? Or would you have to lie on the BATF Form 4473, by checking the box that questions your mental condition?

And what about your drug use? That might be a little problem for you too. You'd also have to lie about that, in order to purchase a firearm, wouldn't you? Just like Hunter Biden did, dope head.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 16, 2022)

fncceo said:


> Imagine the carbon footprint from a mile-long procession of buses.
> 
> I wonder how those people sleep at night.



  What if we did the same thing in memory of all the children murdered via abortion?  That procession, supposedly representing more than two years' worth of children murdered with guns, would only represent a day or two worth of abortion victims.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 16, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Imagine if black families had had AR15s, in the late 1860's when he Democrats in the KKK were attacking them, then later in the 1920's, when a pro-Klan movie hyped by leader of the progressive movement President Woodrow Wilson (D-New Jersey) brought on a Klan revival.



  Many of the earliest gun control laws in this nation were passed to benefit the KKK, and specifically targeted black people to be denied the right to keep and bear arms.

  Gee, I can't imagine why the KKK would want black people disarmed, can you?

  Perhaps the motive there is similar to that of Timothy Sullivan, a violent criminal-gangster-turned-politician, who crafted New York's Sullivan Law specifically to give his gang an advantage over rival gangs, and over law-abiding citizens on whom his gang wanted to prey.

  And nearly all who support gun control, to this day, are driven by similar motives, no matter what they may claim.  The desire to disarm law-abiding citizens is always based on desires and intentions which, if acted upon, would give those citizens just cause to use their arms to oppose.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 17, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Seems Fitting to honor the only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment:



That spectacle is a testament and "museum" to the disingenuousness and duplicity of rabid anti-gunners.

This particular _pity-proxy-policy-presenter_ campaign using school busses is based in a misrepresentation and outright lie, (4368 "children" killed by guns) and it shows just how despicable and reprehensible anti-gunner tactics are.

The linked news story says:

"Gun violence is the leading cause of death for American *children*; . . .  The bus fleet, which traveled to Cruz’s home and Houston office today, hopes to highlight the scale of loss, and the emphasis on how *young and innocent* their lives were."​
If the 4368 is presented as the number of gun deaths of "young and innocent children" why not limit the dataset to _actual_ children?

That 4368 number is arrived at by adding in 18 & 19 y.o. *adults* and that misrepresentation allows the dump of an additional *2,087 more deaths* to get to their 4368 total,* a* *91.495% bump* in the real number of child gun deaths.

One child is too many which begs the question, why is the (multi-layered) lie necessary?

The deception is worse when the propaganda is associated with the massacre of "young and innocent" school-aged "children" with the visual of 52 school busses being used to push the deception.

18 and 19 y.o. adults are _*not children*_ and including the deaths of 18 and 19 y.o. *adults*, should not be compared to, or included in, the deaths of what is presented as "young and innocent" kids that ride in school buses.

To_ *actually call them children*_, is a lie -- and given the gun death rate of 18 and 19 y.o. *adults* is 24.75/100K for 2020 (7.9 times the rate for real "children"), means it is highly likely many of those 18 and 19 y.o. *adults, *were criminal combatants killed during shootouts on a street, hardly "innocent".

This BS is just another example of the typical dishonest, duplicitous bullshit that anti-gunners can be counted on to spread.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 17, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Doesn't matter to Right Wing Religious Nut Jobs, they only care about fetuses.


Funny I'm not right wing or religious and support a woman's right to choose but I will defend the second amendment because I kin ow that the government cannot protect me or my wife and that the Supreme Court has ruled that no police force has any legal obligation to protect the public or come to the aid of anyone


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Funny I'm not right wing or religious and support a woman's right to choose but I will defend the second amendment


Since when does an amendment need defending?
It's a fucking amendment.


Blues Man said:


> because I kin ow that the government cannot protect me or my wife


Well, no shit.
Maybe if everyone lived next door to a police station, then even that's iffy.


Blues Man said:


> and that the Supreme Court has ruled that no police force has any legal obligation to protect the public or come to the aid of anyone


So?
But that doesn't mean, they won't.
You have a right to defend yourself and your family?


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 17, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Since when does an amendment need defending?
> It's a fucking amendment.
> 
> Well, no shit.
> ...


Rights need defending.

Therefore the Bill of Rights needs defending

And you are going to take the chance the cops might not show up if you ever in danger?  I'm not taking that chance with my or my wife's life.

And the very best tool tool for self defense is a firearm


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Rights need defending.


HUH?
Who told you that?


Blues Man said:


> Therefore the Bill of Rights needs defending


Who told you that?


Blues Man said:


> And you are going to take the chance the cops might not show up if you ever in danger?  I'm not taking that chance with my or my wife's life.


They haven't failed to show up yet.


Blues Man said:


> And the very best tool tool for self defense is a firearm


I agree, that's why I  have them.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 17, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> HUH?
> Who told you that?
> 
> Who told you that?
> ...


I don't need people to tell me obvious things like you seem to.

And if you want to trust the cops to protect you go ahead.  I won't.

Yeah sure you do.  If you did you'd know that 60 round magazines aren't commonplace.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I don't need people to tell me obvious things like you seem to.


Evidently..................you do.


Blues Man said:


> And if you want to trust the cops to protect you go ahead.  I won't.
> 
> Yeah sure you do.  If you did you'd know that 60 round magazines aren't commonplace.


I just stated that retard.
30 round magazines are, and retards who can't shoot tape them together.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 17, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Evidently..................you do.
> 
> I just stated that retard.
> 30 round magazines are, and retards who can't shoot tape them together.



Not necessarily. People who want to shoot a lot without doing mag changes. But tape is for amateurs.

magazine clamps - Google Search


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 17, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Evidently..................you do.
> 
> I just stated that retard.
> 30 round magazines are, and retards who can't shoot tape them together.


I have never seen anyone do that and I'm sure you haven't outside of the movies or TV


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jul 17, 2022)

If Manuel Oliver wants a procession of school buses to honor school children killed, he need not bring up the NRA, or guns.  The buses themselves are the killers.









						How Many Fatal School Bus Accidents Are There Per Year? | Greenberg & Stein
					

Every year, 121 people are killed in fatal school bus accidents, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).




					greenbergandstein.com


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 17, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And lobby Congress to make sure anyone can buy any weapon they want no questions asked.




Dipshit.....as the other anti-gun fascists remind us, the NRA was on board for the current NICS system and they want to improve it.......the problem isn't the NRA or guns, or gun owners, the problem is you idiots support the political party that keeps releasing violent gun offenders...over and over again....where 99% of gun murder comes from.....

And you stand in the way of protecting our schools.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 17, 2022)

Abatis said:


> That spectacle is a testament and "museum" to the disingenuousness and duplicity of rabid anti-gunners.
> 
> This particular _pity-proxy-policy-presenter_ campaign using school busses is based in a misrepresentation and outright lie, (4368 "children" killed by guns) and it shows just how despicable and reprehensible anti-gunner tactics are.
> 
> ...



*18 and 19 y.o. adults are not children and including the deaths of 18 and 19 y.o. adults, should not be compared to, or included in, the deaths of what is presented as "young and innocent" kids that ride in school buses.*


Yes........exactly......That they have to lie, so early and so often......shows that they have no intention of being honest in any aspect of the gun debate, and when idiots say "they don't want to ban guns," they are lying through their teeth...

*First of all, the number of firearm deaths for school-age children drops quite a bit when you do not include 18-year-olds.
---
Removing 18-year-olds would drop the gun death number to 28,559 — just slightly fewer than the total for the military and police.
----

In fact, 17- and 18-year-olds make up almost 56 percent of the gun deaths of school-age children. The numbers also drop significantly — 60 percent — if suicides are removed.
---
We are also wary when a single change in the data set — from age 18 to 17 — reduces the number enough that the statistic is no longer correct.*

Biden’s startling statistic on school-age gun deaths

'Then....you have to keep in mind that you have 15 year old, hardened gang members who are not innocent waifs, simply hit on accident by bullets....they are the assassins of these gangs because they know if they get caught, they will be out of prison by the time they are 21.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 17, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> If Manuel Oliver wants a procession of school buses to honor school children killed, he need not bring up the NRA, or guns.  The buses themselves are the killers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you....I am now taking that for my posts.....

Total number of people killed in mass public shootings in 2021.......43.

School Buses kill 121....

Deer kill 200

Lawn mowers between 90-100

Every single year..................


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 17, 2022)

fncceo said:


> Imagine the carbon footprint from a mile-long procession of buses.
> 
> I wonder how those people sleep at night.
> 
> View attachment 670845


I wonder how many buses it would take to carry 63 million children?  Or even the 2+ million since 2020 to now?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 17, 2022)

I'd still like to hear what law, other than very harsh, very long, prison sentences for violent crime, that anyone, right or left, thinks can be passed that would stop children from being killed


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 17, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Seems Fitting to honor the only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep lock those thugs up and keep the trash locked up in those democrat controlled cities and fewer children will be killed. That's what normal people with common sense call real solutions. But no you want the thugs released and believe they are being targeted by racist police.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Dipshit.....as the other anti-gun fascists remind us, the NRA was on board for the current NICS system and they want to improve it.......the problem isn't the NRA or guns, or gun owners, the problem is you idiots support the political party that keeps releasing violent gun offenders...over and over again....where 99% of gun murder comes from.....
> 
> And you stand in the way of protecting our schools.


I don't know what's funnier.

That you wrote that....

Or that you may actually believe that.  

Red states release folks all the time from Prison. Who sits on those Pardon and Parole boards?  Red state governor appointees.  









						JUSTICE STORY: Texas ‘Broomstick Murder’ killer walked out of prison, killed some more
					

The crime became known as the “Broomstick Murders,” so-called because of the weapon McDuff used to crush the girl’s throat after raping her.




					www.nydailynews.com
				




Yet you will blame Democrats for this.  Makes no sense but that is what you guys have become....completely devoid of reality.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 17, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I don't know what's funnier.
> 
> That you wrote that....
> 
> ...



Seeing as how you don't even own a firearm, you should probably recuse yourself the fuck out of this conversation.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 17, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Seeing as how you don't even own a firearm, you should probably recuse yourself the fuck out of this conversation.


Oh wow, the dickless wonder is getting upset.  LOL.

The 2nd Amendment is responsible for 100% of the kids getting mowed down in school.  We call that a tragedy.  You celebrate it.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 17, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Oh wow, the dickless wonder is getting upset.  LOL.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is responsible for 100% of the kids getting mowed down in school.  We call that a tragedy.  You celebrate it.



I disagree, my flat-chested manly-looking "woman."

The 2nd Amendment is the reason I'm not speaking the King's' English, eating eel pie, drinking gin, and beating my wife tonight.

Although you sound like you could use a good beating. Perhaps you should find a husband who would do that for you. Then maybe you wouldn't be such an insufferable K*nt.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I don't know what's funnier.
> 
> That you wrote that....
> 
> ...


😆 Are you hoping they'll ban broomsticks? 😅😅😅


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 😆 Are you hoping they'll ban broomsticks? 😅😅😅



She better hope they don't. Or else that witch will have to walk instead of fly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> What does the NRA have to do with that?   They train first responders and civilians to use firearms legally and safely.....and many NRA trained individuals have saved lives with their guns........


The NRA is clearly part of the problem – the biggest problem is conservatives who refuse to even address the issue, to consider solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

All we hear from the right are lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And lobby Congress to make sure anyone can buy any weapon they want no questions asked.


And threaten Republican lawmakers into not even considering the issue.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Imagine if black families had had AR15s, in the late 1860's when he Democrats in the KKK were attacking them, then later in the 1920's, when a pro-Klan movie hyped by leader of the progressive movement President Woodrow Wilson (D-New Jersey) brought on a Klan revival.


Another example of lies and demagoguery from the right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Dipshit.....as the other anti-gun fascists remind us, the NRA was on board for the current NICS system and they want to improve it.......the problem isn't the NRA or guns, or gun owners, the problem is you idiots support the political party that keeps releasing violent gun offenders...over and over again....where 99% of gun murder comes from.....
> 
> And you stand in the way of protecting our schools.


This is a lie.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The NRA is clearly part of the problem – the biggest problem is conservatives who refuse to even address the issue, to consider solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.
> 
> All we hear from the right are lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’



Loar….we brought up mental health issues, getting people to tell the police about nutty relatives, arming some teachers and staff at schools and providing various non-gun security measures in schools…..

Since you guys profit off of mass public shootings….they are best thing to happen to your anti-gun fanaticism……….you guys refuse to do rational things to prevent these attacks….


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Oh wow, the dickless wonder is getting upset.  LOL.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is responsible for 100% of the kids getting mowed down in school.  We call that a tragedy.  You celebrate it.



Do you know how childish you are when you post dumb stuff like that?

Europe took guns away from their peoples…and then Murdered over 1 million children in just 6 years…..along with 14 million other human beings………..more killed in 6 years than all the gun murder deaths in 246 years of our history…..

sell your BS to Biden voters


----------



## Abatis (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Red states release folks all the time from Prison. Who sits on those Pardon and Parole boards?  Red state governor appointees.
> 
> Yet you will blame Democrats for this.  Makes no sense but that is what you guys have become....completely devoid of reality.



LOL . . . 

Here's Philly:


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Loar….we brought up mental health issues, getting people to tell the police about nutty relatives, arming some teachers and staff at schools and providing various non-gun security measures in schools…..
> 
> Since you guys profit off of mass public shootings….they are best thing to happen to your anti-gun fanaticism……….you guys refuse to do rational things to prevent these attacks….


Start a thread discussing ways to address gun crime and violence that doesn’t involve the regulation of firearms absent lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And threaten Republican lawmakers into not even considering the issue.


We snowflake you did have one of your own shoot Republicans at a baseball field.👍


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Start a thread discussing ways to address gun crime and violence that doesn’t involve the regulation of firearms absent lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’


Sure but that is what your democrats want pathway to confiscate all firearms. And I'm not giving it to them no compromise give nothing up mass shootings be damn


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And lobby Congress to make sure anyone can buy any weapon they want no questions asked.


The NRA supported background checks, ya damn liar.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> The NRA supported background checks, ya damn liar.


The National Rifle Association spent $1.6 million during the first half of the year lobbying members of the House and Senate against laws that would enact stricter background checks for people looking to buy guns, according to disclosure reports.

One of the dozens of bills targeted by the NRA is H.R. 8, a bipartisan proposal that passed the Democratic-controlled House in February and has yet to be taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate. The second-quarter filing shows that NRA lobbyists continued their efforts against the bill after its passage in the House. The lobbyists also looked to make changes to the Background Check Expansion Act from Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 18, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The National Rifle Association spent $1.6 million during the first half of the year lobbying members of the House and Senate against laws that would enact stricter background checks for people looking to buy guns, according to disclosure reports.
> 
> One of the dozens of bills targeted by the NRA is H.R. 8, a bipartisan proposal that passed the Democratic-controlled House in February and has yet to be taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate. The second-quarter filing shows that NRA lobbyists continued their efforts against the bill after its passage in the House. The lobbyists also looked to make changes to the Background Check Expansion Act from Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.


They backed background checks, which contradicts candycorns post.
I didnt say they backed background checks for children receiving a a .22 for christmas from their parents.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> The NRA supported background checks, ya damn liar.


And gun show loopholes you can drive a truck through.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And threaten Republican lawmakers into not even considering the issue.


Truth.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Seems Fitting to honor the only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're a fucking idiot...


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And gun show loopholes you can drive a truck through.


No such thing as a "gun show loophole"
You are referring to not needing background checks for private transfers. EVERY customer that buys a gun from a dealer at a gun show must go through a background check.
Private transactions happen at gun shows just like they do in walmart parking lots after agreeing to terms on facebook.
Is there a "facebook loophole" too, retard?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 18, 2022)

JGalt said:


> And what about your drug use? That might be a little problem for you too. You'd also have to lie about that, in order to purchase a firearm, wouldn't you?



I know when applying for a Florida carry permit, one disqualifying factor is a "a record of drug or alcohol abuse". The problem with this is that a "record" is never defined. Does a single hit off a joint, only to find out you don't like smoking pot, sufficient? Is a weekend bender enough to satisfy having a "record" of alcohol abuse?

I do know that, in Florida at least, if you get your medical marijuana card you lose your concealed carry permit. I don't smoke pot, so I'm not worried about that, but I know pot smokers who won't get their medical marijuana card because of that...


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> No such thing as a "gun show loophole"
> You are referring to not needing background checks for private transfers. EVERY customer that buys a gun from a dealer at a gun show must go through a background check.
> Private transactions happen at gun shows just like they do in walmart parking lots after agreeing to terms on facebook.
> Is there a "facebook loophole" too, retard?


Yet here is a video of someone buying a gun no questions asked.


Amazing....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> We snowflake you did have one of your own shoot Republicans at a baseball field.👍


Republican lawmakers are cowards, like most on the right.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Yet here is a video of someone buying a gun no questions asked.
> 
> 
> Amazing....


Thats a private seller and considered a private transaction. The guy is not a FFL dealer.
Perfectly legal transaction. No "loopholes" required.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sure but that is what your democrats want pathway to confiscate all firearms. And I'm not giving it to them no compromise give nothing up mass shootings be damn


Conservatives don’t even have the courage, decency, or integrity to at least consider solutions to gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Yet here is a video of someone buying a gun no questions asked.
> 
> 
> Amazing....


Such private sales are legal only between residents of the same state.

Those participating in a private transaction verify mutual state residency with a state ID, like a driver’s license.

How did the seller verify the 13 year old was a state resident if the boy has no driver’s license – the seller failing to do so was being stupid and reckless.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The NRA is clearly part of the problem – the biggest problem is conservatives who refuse to even address the issue, to consider solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.
> 
> All we hear from the right are lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’



Ass opposed to the leftist lies about how the NRA is causing gun crime?

So what is the "issue"? The issue is that some people break laws. Like that food court shooting in the Indiana mall: That entire mall was a "No Weapons" zone. And thanks to the tireless work of the NRA, there was a legally-armed gun owner who immediately put a stop to the shooting.

So what would have been your "solution" to prevent that shooting from taking place? It was already illegal for anyone to carry a weapon into that mall. Maybe your solution would be to make the posted sign bigger? Use bigger letters or brighter colors, so the criminal shooter would have seen it?


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives don’t even have the courage, decency, or integrity to at least consider solutions to gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.



Courage, decency, and integrity are what was shown by that man who stopped the Indiana mall food court shooter. That's how you deal with gun crime.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I know when applying for a Florida carry permit, one disqualifying factor is a "a record of drug or alcohol abuse". The problem with this is that a "record" is never defined. Does a single hit off a joint, only to find out you don't like smoking pot, sufficient? Is a weekend bender enough to satisfy having a "record" of alcohol abuse?
> 
> I do know that, in Florida at least, if you get your medical marijuana card you lose your concealed carry permit. I don't smoke pot, so I'm not worried about that, but I know pot smokers who won't get their medical marijuana card because of that...



One hit off a joint or a weekend bender wouldn't leave a "record" unless you got arrested or something. It would have to be something the authorities were aware of.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 18, 2022)

JGalt said:


> One hit off a joint or a weekend bender wouldn't leave a "record" unless you got arrested or something. It would have to be something the authorities were aware of.



Do you believe that someone taking a single hit off a joint and being caught by a cop should be sufficient for someone to lose their 2nd Amendment rights?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> the biggest problem is conservatives who refuse to even address the issue, to consider solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms



No, the biggest problem is idiot liberals who target only law abiding citizens with more laws.

If those same idiot liberals were to actually target criminals, they would see those conservatives being a bit more open to dialog. These new laws are targeting those who've done nothing wrong...


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Do you believe that someone taking a single hit off a joint and being caught by a cop should be sufficient for someone to lose their 2nd Amendment rights?



I'm invoking the libertarian defense here: I believe it's up to the individual to make their own life's choices. That's just something that I personally wouldn't do.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All we hear from the right are lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’



Really?

Damn Right, We’re Coming for Your Guns

"Our government needs to take the guns, at least the ones that are built specifically for killing large numbers of human beings in a short period of time."

"Hell, Yes, I'm Going to Take Your AR-15!" Extreme Positions Steal Spotlight in Dem Debate – InsideSources

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."


Given half a chance, the left would outlaw provate gun ownership. The only reason they haven't tried is they know they'd be shot dead.

The left absolutely hates guns. That's something which can't even be debated. They hate guns, and they hate those of us who own them, despite the fact that the vast majority of us have never committed a crime...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 18, 2022)

JGalt said:


> I'm invoking the libertarian defense here: I believe it's up to the individual to make their own life's choices. That's just something that I personally wouldn't do.



Well, neither do I. But you still haven't answered the question.

Should a single toke disqualify someone from carrying a concealed weapon?


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, neither do I. But you still haven't answered the question.
> 
> Should a single toke disqualify someone from carrying a concealed weapon?



I can't answer that, other than saying if should disqualify me if that happened to me. Following existing laws is just a personal choice I've made, but I can't speak for anyone else.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives don’t even have the courage, decency, or integrity to at least consider solutions to gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.


Horseshit. Democrats want to confiscate all guns it's the end game goal  you can lie too yourself but historically that is their position


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Republican lawmakers are cowards, like most on the right.


And what does that have to do with one of your own shooting Republicans?


----------



## Abatis (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Start a thread discussing ways to address gun crime and violence that doesn’t involve the regulation of firearms absent lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’



There are plenty of proposed gun laws that may fall short of a 'ban' or 'confiscation' (no matter who is doing the defining) that are still violations of the right to keep and bear arms, thus are infringements on the right, as recognized and secured by the 2ndA.

The right to arms is an immunity from governmental powers that were never granted in the first place.  I don't need to prove a right exists, you need to prove a legitimate power exists to do what you want to do.

The right to arms is not granted or given by upon the 2ndA and it does not rely on "interpretations" of words that the right in no manner depends upon to exist.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Such private sales are legal only between residents of the same state.
> 
> Those participating in a private transaction verify mutual state residency with a state ID, like a driver’s license.
> 
> How did the seller verify the 13 year old was a state resident if the boy has no driver’s license – the seller failing to do so was being stupid and reckless.


Gee, sounds like a loophole to me.

Who is responsible for allowing it?  The NRA (in part).  

It is just hilarious that the dickless wonders who support this type of thing pretend that the NRA had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Seems Fitting to honor the only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most of those children were killed by criminals in deep blue gun controlled liberal cities


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Gee, sounds like a loophole to me.
> 
> Who is responsible for allowing it?  The NRA (in part).
> 
> It is just hilarious that the dickless wonders who support this type of thing pretend that the NRA had nothing to do with it.



That's idiotic. The NRA doesn't "allow" states to decide their own gun codes. Those are written, submitted, and voted on by state legislators, who carry out the will of the people.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives don’t even have the courage, decency, or integrity to at least consider solutions to gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.


 Before you get to prattle on about what you _*want to do*_ you need to have the honest assessment of what government is *allowed to do*.  

As it stands now, the gun rights side is on the solid legal footing telling you that you can't do what you want to do.  

So between anti-gun wackos like you and gun rights supporters, it is *you* who needs to busy thinking of "solutions to gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms".


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 18, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Before you get to prattle on about what you _*want to do*_ you need to have the honest assessment of what government is *allowed to do*.
> 
> As it stands now, the gun rights side is on the solid legal footing telling you that you can't do what you want to do.
> 
> So between anti-gun wackos like you and gun rights supporters, it is *you* who needs to busy thinking of "solutions to gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms".


What liberals could do if they really care about gun violence is put criminals or underage people in jail when we catch them with a gun they are not legally allowed to have

I think mandatory non-waivable  3 years in jail is about right

That will do more to reduce gun violence than anything else


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 18, 2022)

JGalt said:


> I'll just leave this here. Isn't this a fine bunch of law-abiding, white, Christian, Trump-supporting, gun-owning, NRA members?
> 
> View attachment 670863


Racism caused this.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Racism caused this.



Whitey's fault.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And gun show loopholes you can drive a truck through.


You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Yet here is a video of someone buying a gun no questions asked.
> 
> 
> Amazing....


That's how it's supposed to be. How it was until 1968.  Did gun crime go up or down after we stopped children buying guns?  Did gun crime go up or down after we stopped felons from buying guns?  Did either yield a positive impact on gun crime?  Of course not.  Criminals don't follow the law.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives don’t even have the courage, decency, or integrity to at least consider solutions to gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.


Responsibility is on the buyer to only purchase in his own state.  If the seller knows the buyer is from out of state, he can't make the sale but there's no requirement that the seller get proof.

What would have been best, though, in this case would have been for the 13-year-old boy to get Mom's Sears Catalog and order it directly for delivery by mail to his doorstep.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 18, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Ass opposed to the leftist lies about how the NRA is causing gun crime?
> 
> So what is the "issue"? The issue is that some people break laws. Like that food court shooting in the Indiana mall: That entire mall was a "No Weapons" zone. And thanks to the tireless work of the NRA, there was a legally-armed gun owner who immediately put a stop to the shooting.
> 
> So what would have been your "solution" to prevent that shooting from taking place? It was already illegal for anyone to carry a weapon into that mall. Maybe your solution would be to make the posted sign bigger? Use bigger letters or brighter colors, so the criminal shooter would have seen it?


The left will claim that the mass shooting was not stopped because, by their definition, 4 dead is a mass shooting even though one of the dead was the shooter.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Really?
> 
> Damn Right, We’re Coming for Your Guns
> 
> ...


Guns aren’t going to be ‘banned,’ guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated.’

Nothing but lies and demagoguery from the right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Gee, sounds like a loophole to me.
> 
> Who is responsible for allowing it?  The NRA (in part).
> 
> It is just hilarious that the dickless wonders who support this type of thing pretend that the NRA had nothing to do with it.


Hence the NRA’s unwarranted opposition to UBCs which have nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 18, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Do you believe that someone taking a single hit off a joint and being caught by a cop should be sufficient for someone to lose their 2nd Amendment rights?


Don't you?  You've come out openly in favor of free people losing their 2nd Amendment protections of their God-given right to keep and bear arms.  If they violate the law they lose their rights, right?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 18, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> What liberals could do if they really care about gun violence is put criminals or underage people in jail when we catch them with a gun they are not legally allowed to have
> 
> I think mandatory non-waivable  3 years in jail is about right
> 
> That will do more to reduce gun violence than anything else


Wrong.  Even their rights to keep and bear arms are protected by the Constitution.  If you want to do something about gun crime, then do something about crime.  Or are you OK if a liquor store is robbed with a baseball bat or a knife?  

Put criminals in miserable jails for long periods of time.  Armed robbery (regardless of the arm) 10 years first offense; 20 for the second, life for the third.  Rape - 20 years first offense (that's a compromise because my preference is death for first offense).  Child rape - death penalty first offense.  Child molestation, including posession of child porn: life in prison, no parole.

That's  how you stop crime, regardless of what weapon is used.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hence the NRA’s unwarranted opposition to UBCs which have nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.



Why should I have to pay for a background check if I want to sell a shotgun to Bubba, who lives right next door? Or for that matter, if I find a gun at a garage sale? Are we supposed to drive somewhere and undergo a background check before completing the transaction?

You do know that it's perfectly legal for private individuals to sell one of their personal firearms to another private individual, right? The only stipulations are that you don't knowingly sell one to a minor or a felon, both of which have been known to lie on the Form 4473 when purchasing one from a dealer. Even the drug addict Hunter Biden did that when he illegally purchased a pistol in 2018.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 18, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Wrong. Even their rights to keep and bear arms are protected by the Constitution. If you want to do something about gun crime, then do something about crime. Or are you OK if a liquor store is robbed with a baseball bat or a knife?


The immediate issue is gun violence

If you lock up criminals who carry guns that will reduce crime overalls as well as gun violence

But i agree that many Soros funded DAs in deep
blue cities are soft on all criminals


----------



## martybegan (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And lobby Congress to make sure anyone can buy any weapon they want no questions asked.



The problem is when you allow States to ask "questions" you get the shit in NY where they pile paperwork on and on to discourage people from getting weapons. 

The NRA supports instant background checks to make sure a person isn't a felon or otherwise disqualified via due process from owning a firearm.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 18, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> What liberals could do if they really care about gun violence is put criminals or underage people in jail when we catch them with a gun they are not legally allowed to have
> 
> I think mandatory non-waivable  3 years in jail is about right
> 
> That will do more to reduce gun violence than anything else



But the opposite is practiced nowadays.  The progressive agenda of non-prosecution of illegal carry is driving a lot of gun crime.

This is Philly where a former BLM lawyer was elected District Attorney and he has mounted a program that declines or simply withdraws charges on _*PROHIBITED*_ people who were caught illegally carrying a gun.  As the dropped / withdrawn rate reached over 70%, the tally of shootings rose to over _*225 A MONTH*_!




As convictions and guilty pleas on gun charges drop, shootings rise . . .  Note that the cops are still making the arrests for illegal carry in proportion and conjunction with the rise in gun criminals shooting people, but the DA is declining prosecution:



​A *recent study on the practice* has said that approx. 75 homicides a year can be attributed to the non-prosecution policy (screengrab):


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Gee, sounds like a loophole to me.
> 
> Who is responsible for allowing it?  The NRA (in part).
> 
> It is just hilarious that the dickless wonders who support this type of thing pretend that the NRA had nothing to do with it.



The democrats are in control of the House, the Senate and the Oval Office.

Why have they done nothing to address that?

Don't blame the NRA, blame democrats...


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 18, 2022)

Abatis said:


> But the opposite is practiced nowadays.  The progressive agenda of non-prosecution of illegal carry is driving a lot of gun crime.
> 
> This is Philly where a former BLM lawyer was elected District Attorney and he has mounted a program that declines or simply withdraws charges on _*PROHIBITED*_ people who were caught illegally carrying a gun.  As the dropped / withdrawn rate reached over 70%, the tally of shootings rose to over _*225 A MONTH*_!
> 
> ...


Its an insane policy that only Tweener apologists like Mac1958 could approve of

Because more gun violence gives libs the excuse they seek to take all the guns


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> Thats a private seller and considered a private transaction. The guy is not a FFL dealer.
> Perfectly legal transaction. No "loopholes" required.



Perfectly legal thanks to the NRA.  Bin Laden could have made the same purchase...right?  Sure.  

Also I appreciate you confirming this loophole exists only hours after you said it didn't.  You're the most useful of useful idiots.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> The democrats are in control of the House, the Senate and the Oval Office.
> 
> Why have they done nothing to address that?
> 
> Don't blame the NRA, blame democrats...


You do not know the way the Senate works, apparently.

That having been said...the Democrats should have been more aggressive on every front.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 18, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The National Rifle Association spent $1.6 million during the first half of the year lobbying members of the House and Senate against laws that would enact stricter background checks for people looking to buy guns, according to disclosure reports.
> 
> One of the dozens of bills targeted by the NRA is H.R. 8, a bipartisan proposal that passed the Democratic-controlled House in February and has yet to be taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate. The second-quarter filing shows that NRA lobbyists continued their efforts against the bill after its passage in the House. The lobbyists also looked to make changes to the Background Check Expansion Act from Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.



And context….

Left wing asshats like you want universal background checks…not to stop criminals from getting guns…criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns……..you want universal background checks so you can use them to demand gun registration…..the actual thing that you want and need to later ban and confiscate guns


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2022)

martybegan said:


> The problem is when you allow States to ask "questions" you get the shit in NY where they pile paperwork on and on to discourage people from getting weapons.
> 
> The NRA supports instant background checks to make sure a person isn't a felon or otherwise disqualified via due process from owning a firearm.


Yeah, here's the problem when you don't

















So the kid's social media history is clearly showing, to put it mildly, alarming signs.  He's buying body armor and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.  He's not going to school and is fired from his job.

None of that would show up on a criminal background check....  But clearly the pattern listed above is a Hollywood story board of a film where the final scene would be a school shooting.

Should the authorities have taken the time to go through the non-criminal history of this gunman detailed above (and this is just what I cut and pasted from the article--there is MUCH MUCH MORE)?  I'm sure you'll say no because, hell, it would mean one less weapon being sold.  And we can't have that now, can we?

Unbelievable.









						A year before Uvalde shooting, gunman had threatened women, carried around a dead cat and been nicknamed “school shooter”
					

Identified as at-risk, he never received special education services and ultimately flunked out, according to a Texas House committee report.




					www.texastribune.org


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And context….
> 
> Left wing asshats like you want universal background checks…not to stop criminals from getting guns…criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns……..you want universal background checks so you can use them to demand gun registration…..the actual thing that you want and need to later ban and confiscate guns


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 18, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Perfectly legal thanks to the NRA. Bin Laden could have made the same purchase...right? Sure.


Bin laden was not a legal resident of the US

So no, he could not


----------



## g5000 (Jul 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No.....considering, again, the NRA trains police and military and civilians......they are doing more to stop all shootings than the democrat party is as the democrat party actually attacks the police and releases repeat gun offenders over and over again.....


The NRA blocks every gun law in the country.  Don't be obtuse.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 18, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> The immediate issue is gun violence
> 
> If you lock up criminals who carry guns that will reduce crime overalls as well as gun violence
> 
> ...


Long post below but anyone who cares at all about their right to keep and bear arms and about the 2nd Amendment that gives constitutional protection to that right will take the time to really read it, to understand it, and adopt the principles and ideas in it:

That the immediate issue is gun violence is an anti-gun, leftist, lie.  They focus on the gun and ignore the violence.  Gullible, weak, gun owners follow along.

It is no different than focusing on the suicide by guns as a gun issue rather than a suicide issue.  If they outlaw all guns and manage to get most of them off the streets, even from criminals - and, over time, they would succeed by attrition, then the mentally ill just switch to poisons, tall buildings, freeway over passes, head-ons with semi-trucks, or any of a hundred other ways to kill themselves.  See Japan as proof.

If all legal gun owners turned in their guns, and as guns get taken from criminals, even when the criminal is let back on the street, eventually the supply dries up and even the criminals don't have guns.  Sure, there will always be exceptions; the deeply protected/hidden ones, newly smuggled ones, etc., but gun crime will drop.  Crime, on the other hand, won't drop by much.  And the no-bail release of violent criminals works in the favor of the gun confiscators.  Stupid criminals get caught with guns and the gun is confiscated.  Put them back out on the street so they can get caught with another gun and another gun is confiscated.  If you want to catch fish,  you have to keep baiting your hook and putting it in the water.

In some months, London has had more knife killings as NYC had gun killings.  Generally, though, the UK's crime has gone down.

So, overtime, you and the leftists are right; if we confiscate the guns, incrementally, of course, eventually gun crime goes down and crime goes down and even the criminals won't have guns.  So if you agree with them that the problem is gun crime and the first goal is to stop gun crime, then confiscate the guns.  On the other hand, if the problem is crime, rather than gun crime, the solutions and approach are different.

To stop crime, we disincentivize it.  We do that by first defunding the cartels and US drug gangs by letting stupid people do stupid shit.  Buy whatever drug you want.  But it would actually be safer if they could buy it over the counter from a pharmacy rather than from a cartel and China.

Next, for those still inclined to crime, just because they're scum instead of for the big drug profits, put criminals in jail for a long time.  Three-strikes-you're-out laws in every state.  Armed robbery, regardless of the arm, 10 years first offense, 20 years the second.  Rape - life in prison.  Child rape - death.  Assault - 5 years.

TV for an hour a day - 30 minutes of local news, 30 minutes of national news.  Food - bologna sandwiches for lunch and dinner.  Oatmeal for breakfast.  No dessert. No exercise yard and no weight lifting and no basketball.  Work off their debt to society.

Guns don't cause crime; criminals do.  Guns don't kill people; people do.

If you give an inch, accepting that guns cause crime and if you allow them to violate the Constitution by going after the gun then you can kiss your guns good-bye.  It's inevitable.

Remember that the gun controllers come to the table with nothing at all.  We come with "shall not be infringed".  They come with "we'll take them all or we'll take just some".  There's no negotiation or compromise that doesn't mean losing some guns.  Eventually it will be all of them.

When the FFA was passed in 1938, it was the first time in the history of the United States when the Federal Government ever believed for a minute that they could get away with - not that it was constitutional but that they could get away with - restricting any free person from owning a gun. The FFA restricted access for violent felons, not felony litterers or white-collar crimes.

In 1968  extended to include all felons, including felony litterers and white-collar crimes.

In 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment added misdemeanor domestic violence AND having a restraining order.  Charges of violence and court ordered restraining orders are almost an automatic part of modern divorce.

In 2022, the boyfriend loophole is closed.

All of these seem like such great ideas.  Stopping violent felons from  having guns.  Then when that didn't stop crime, extend it to all felons - they don't deserve rights, the nasty SOBs.  Who doesn't want a law to protect abused wives?  Of course the law did nothing to stop them from being beaten but it added more "Prohibited persons".  Whoops, what about boyfriends and girlfriends.   More prohibited persons.

Read my signature. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom."  All these infringements are so necessary.  Next will be the red-flag laws as states comply with Federal wishes so they can get the Federal money.  More prohibited persons.  That's very necessary, isn't it?  We don't lock up violent crazy people; we just take their guns.  They can still throw pipes at women and get away with it but the goal wasn't safety for women, the goal was adding more to the list of prohibited persons.

What about all those on no-fly lists?  There have been many calls to ban them from having guns.  Who wants a  terrorist to have a gun?  I certainly don't.  It's necessary.  More prohibited persons.

What about those arrested for DUI?  Can't control your drugs or alcohol consumption?  If you can't be trusted with a car, you certainly can't be trusted with a gun.  More necessity.  More prohibited persons.  And not a bad idea in any of it.  It all makes sense and only represents "reasonable restrictions".  Surely we can all agree that reasonable restrictions aren't really infringements.  Surely the Founders would have agreed with us on all these infringements...  errr... I mean, all these reasonable restrictions.

If you can't see the trend and the pattern, you're blind.

If a person commits a violent crime, put them in prison for so long that they don't have the strength to do it again when they get out.

If you value your right to keep and bear arms, if you support the 2nd Amendment and enjoy the protections it offers to your right to keep and bear arms, then don't make excuses to yourself for allowing Government to infringe on the right. Stand your ground.  For every problem you think a gun law will solve, there's a better solution that doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  And you can't name a single gun control law that prevented a felon from  having a gun so you can't name a single gun control law that helped.

But I can name two laws that have made a difference; how do you feel about those?  The NFA 1934 required licensing to buy an automatic weapon.  The FOPA 1986 banned making more machine guns for civilian use.  Between the two, you never see machine guns used in the streets of Chicago or Philly.  They're just too expensive to buy and then undoubtedly lose since they're registered.  So you almost have to agree that gun control can work.  The question is, are there better laws and better ways to solve the crimes without the tyranny of gun control?

What brought the machine gun into common use by criminals?  Prohibition and the black market it created.  Did all the gangs turn in their machine guns when the NFA was passed?  It hardly seems likely - but there are over 638,000 registered machine guns in civilian hands today.

The article below states that there are only 4 cases where a machine gun has been used in a crime since the NFA was passed.  









						Have Legally Owned Automatic Weapons Been Used in Crime?
					

Did you know, most homicides involving firearms usually involve large-caliber revolvers? Even in gang-related incidents, use of automatic weapons are rare.




					gunmagwarehouse.com
				




2 of those 4 were committed by police using their duty guns, not NFA registered guns.  Another was committed by a sailor in 1992 at Pearl Harbor using a military machine gun, not an NFA gun.  The fourth might have actually referred to an NFA registered silencer, not a machine gun.

So these laws have been very successful.

The new machine gun ban in FOPA, though, wasn't needed since there hadn't been any, as in zero, reported machine guns used in killings from the passing of the NFA until FOPA was passed.  The machine gun ban in FOPA had nothing to do with necessity or safety but it was sold as necessary, too. It was more incrementalism.

Next steps of incrementalism on NFA products might be things like banning the transfer of all NFA items.  When the current owner dies, they're done.  There's already talk of ending the ability for trusts to register NFA items.  That would be necessary for the transfer ban to result in confiscation.  More necessity.  More incrementalism.

So the pattern continues: more incrementalism, more necessity, more laws that don't do a thing but sound like they do.

What you need to do, what all of us need to do, is focus on laws that would work without gun control and without surrendering the 2nd Amendment and, along with it, any constitutional restrictions at all on the Federal and State governments.

So back to the cause of the rise of the machine gun in crime: prohibition.  What's the cause of most crime in the US today?  Prohibition.  If machine guns became readily available, cheaply available, today, who would use them most for crime?  Drug gangs.  Why aren't those gang members already in prison for their violent acts?  Why do we continue prohibition after actually passing a constitutional amendment to end the first prohibition wholly because it was ineffective and led to violent crime?  Why isn't there an amendment to end prohibition again?  It leads now,  just as it did then, to violent crime and is wholly ineffective in stopping drug use - in fact, it increases drug use just as the alcohol prohibition increased alcohol use.

So, what I say to you and all of the gun controlling conservatives, all who pretend to support the 2nd Amendment while actually working to make it meaningless by giving the Government permission to ignore it and infringe, use your brains.  There is always a better way that doesn't include gun control.  Stand your ground, and do not let the left, do not join in with the left in letting them take your  guns or anyone else's guns.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 18, 2022)

g5000 said:


> The NRA blocks every gun law in the country.  Don't be obtuse.


No, the 2nd Amendment blocks every gun law in the country.  The NRA blocks nothing.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Bin laden was not a legal resident of the US
> 
> So no, he could not


Yeah...like a gun nut selling weapons _no questions asked_ would make that fine distinction.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And context….
> 
> Left wing asshats like you want universal background checks…not to stop criminals from getting guns…criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns……..you want universal background checks so you can use them to demand gun registration…..the actual thing that you want and need to later ban and confiscate guns


Sure we do, gullible, Q NUT.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Yeah, here's the problem when you don't
> 
> View attachment 671633
> 
> ...


Trumphumpers would whine about crazy people's right to "due process".


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Responsibility is on the buyer to only purchase in his own state.  If the seller knows the buyer is from out of state, he can't make the sale but there's no requirement that the seller get proof.
> 
> What would have been best, though, in this case would have been for the 13-year-old boy to get Mom's Sears Catalog and order it directly for delivery by mail to his doorstep.


For example, wherever there’s a mass shooting conservatives retreat to the ‘mental health’ redoubt.

If that’s the case, then let’s make sure every American has access to affordable mental healthcare by expanding Medicaid in all 50 states as authorized by the ACA.

Young men in red states without children living with them often have no health insurance and aren’t eligible for Medicaid – young men who are committing mass shootings, young men who might not commit mass shooting if they had access to affordable mental healthcare.

Yet we hear nothing from the right as to policy addressing mental health and mass shootings; indeed, all we hear from the right is unwarranted opposition to expanding Medicaid.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No.....considering, again, the NRA trains police and military and civilians......they are doing more to stop all shootings than the democrat party is as the democrat party actually attacks the police and releases repeat gun offenders over and over again.....


This is a lie.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> No, the 2nd Amendment blocks every gun law in the country.  The NRA blocks nothing.


Another lie – ignorant as well.

Conservatives just can’t stop lying.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Yeah...like a gun nut selling weapons _no questions asked_ would make that fine distinction.


Even the questions the law requires to be asked.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Perfectly legal thanks to the NRA.  Bin Laden could have made the same purchase...right?  Sure.
> 
> Also I appreciate you confirming this loophole exists only hours after you said it didn't.  You're the most useful of useful idiots.


There is no loophole dumbass. You dont understand what a "loophole" actually is. You just regurgitate. 
But at least you swallow at one point


----------



## candycorn (Jul 19, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> There is no loophole dumbass. You dont understand what a "loophole" actually is. You just regurgitate.
> But at least you swallow at one point


You defined the loophole to buying a gun no questions asked twice now.  That is a loophole.  You're just denying the definition.  

You lost the argument about 8 posts ago. All you have now are insults and profanity.  

So please continue...


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> You defined the loophole to buying a gun no questions asked twice now.  That is a loophole.  You're just denying the definition.
> 
> You lost the argument about 8 posts ago. All you have now are insults and profanity.
> 
> So please continue...


There is no requirement for private sellers to go through a background check. There is no federal law a 13 year old cant buy a rifle. Thats not a gunshow "loophole" you fucking idiot.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 19, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> There is no requirement for private sellers to go through a background check.


Thanks to the NRA. Hence the gunshow loophole.  What is this like the 9th time I've bitch slapped your silly ass?


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Thanks to the NRA. Hence the gunshow loophole.  What is this like the 9th time I've bitch slapped your silly ass?


Lol love you too!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Thanks to the NRA. Hence the gunshow loophole.  What is this like the 9th time I've bitch slapped your silly ass?


What gun show loop hole?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 19, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> Lol love you too!


Your surrender is accepted. Try harder next time.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Your surrender is accepted. Try harder next time.


Lol naw. I just remembered im not supposed to pick on the retarded


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Long post below but anyone who cares at all about their right to keep and bear arms and about the 2nd Amendment that gives constitutional protection to that right will take the time to really read it, to understand it, and adopt the principles and ideas in it:
> 
> That the immediate issue is gun violence is an anti-gun, leftist, lie.  They focus on the gun and ignore the violence.  Gullible, weak, gun owners follow along.
> 
> ...


You posted a very long opinion

One idea that I dont agree with is legalizing addictive drugs

Most of the questionable drugs today were legal in the 1800s and ordinary citizens proved they could not control themselves

Which is why those drugs are off limits today


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 19, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> ordinary citizens proved they could not control themselves


Said every authoritarian ever


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Yeah...like a gun nut selling weapons _no questions asked_ would make that fine distinction.


That happens even in gun control countries like the UK


----------



## martybegan (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Yeah, here's the problem when you don't
> 
> View attachment 671633
> 
> ...



Then that's on the powers that be's hands for not following through, and no reason for NYC to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 in fees or so just to keep a fucking revolver in my own apartment.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> None of that would show up on a criminal background check....  But clearly the pattern listed above is a Hollywood story board of a film where the final scene would be a school shooting.



OK? 

And?

The 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4) legal standards to forbid a person to possess a gun and to place them in the NICS so they can't buy a gun, is long established and well known and under no legal challenge from gun rights people.

If a person's problems are never addressed and they never are, "_adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution_" they will not be a prohibited person (for mental heatlh issues).  It isn't enough that the lunch lady or a co-worker always knew they were batshit crazy and someday would "just go off" . . . 

The familiar after-report of these incidents are a litany of missed signals and _shoula-woulda-coulda_'s, and _if only we_'s, but if the shooter was never, "_adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution_", actually keeping them from getting a gun is not among the, _shoula-woulda-coulda_, and _if only we _laments _. . . _

So, whose fault is that?  Family, school, public health personnel, it ain't the NRA's or gun rights people, that's for sure . . .


candycorn said:


> Should the authorities have taken the time to go through the non-criminal history of this gunman . . .  I'm sure you'll say no because, hell, it would mean one less weapon being sold.  And we can't have that now, can we?



Your prediction is correct, the answer is *NO* but not for the ignorant, dumb reason you imagine.

The RKBA is a fundamental right and cannot be disabled without due process. 

Yeah, examining the "non-criminal history" could've been of some value to assess this person's mental state as a process to perhaps have a doctor or a judge make a decision in alignment with §922(g)(4). 

The Monster of Uvalde was an animal torturer and mutilator; he carried around bags of decapitated cats.  Sickos like him have a preoccupation with heads and faces and fixate on negating / obliterating facial features. From early childhood people like him create drawings of people and animals that feature headless bodies or faceless heads . . . Was anyone paying attention?

He was not an experienced gun user; he could only imagine what bullets would do to faces.  He shot his grandmother in the face and then the cops gave him an hour to experiment on his victims at the school. We will find out the children who were mutilated were shot many, many times post-mortem so the "AR is a devastating weapon that decapitates" line of reasoning is typical cultivated leftist emotional bullshit; what happened had less to do with the terminal ballistics of the AR-15 than the depths of mental illness this POS was operating in, and _*nobody*_ was paying attention.

.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The RKBA is a fundamental right and cannot be disabled without due process.
> 
> Yeah, examining the "non-criminal history" could've been of some value to assess this person's mental state as a process to perhaps have a doctor or a judge make a decision in alignment with §922(g)(4).
> 
> The Monster of Uvalde was an animal torturer and mutilator; he carried around bags of decapitated cats. Sickos like him have a preoccupation with heads and faces and fixate on negating / obliterating facial features. From early childhood people like him create drawings of people and animals that feature headless bodies or faceless heads . . . Was anyone paying attention?


And up until he slaughtered the first kid, he was perfectly able to buy as many weapons has he could.  The bags of dead cats, since "due process" had not been carried out, means nothing. 

Was anyone paying attention?  Maybe. Maybe not.  It doesn't matter.  Unless "due process" hasn't been served, it doesn't matter.  

Of course, any sane human being could look at this guy with his bag of dead cats, his online threats to rape people, his statements of fatalism, and quickly conclude that he shouldn't have been sold a gun.

But, thanks to the NRA and the gun nuts in the world...all of that is inadmissible as evidence.  It takes "due process" for someone to say "no" to this "monster", right?

Every other advanced nation on earth has outgrown the silly facade that you've described so beautifully above.  And this is why they don't the monthly massacres to remind us how wonderful the 2nd Amendment is.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 19, 2022)

martybegan said:


> Then that's on the powers that be's hands for not following through, and no reason for NYC to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 in fees or so just to keep a fucking revolver in my own apartment.


Following through?  What legal maneuver could the "powers that be" have done?  Background checks don't include someone's social media history or how they conduct themselves on Playstation.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And up until he slaughtered the first kid, he was perfectly able to buy as many weapons has he could.  The bags of dead cats, since "due process" had not been carried out, means nothing.
> 
> Was anyone paying attention?  Maybe. Maybe not.  It doesn't matter.  Unless "due process" hasn't been served, it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...




*Of course, any sane human being could look at this guy with his bag of dead cats, his online threats to rape people, his statements of fatalism, and quickly conclude that he shouldn't have been sold a gun.*

Since he didn’t show up at the gun store with the bag of dead cats, they had only the mandatory, Federal Background check to scrutinize the guy…..

And he only passed that background check because your god, government, failed.  That bag of cats was a felony…..his online threats were also actionable by the police….you moron….the police could have arrested him for both….you idiot……so no, the NRA had noth8ng to do with this….

Your god failed again…

You don’t know what you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And up until he slaughtered the first kid, he was perfectly able to buy as many weapons has he could.  The bags of dead cats, since "due process" had not been carried out, means nothing.
> 
> Was anyone paying attention?  Maybe. Maybe not.  It doesn't matter.  Unless "due process" hasn't been served, it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...



Except for the fact that Europe murdered 15 million people in just 6 years….in modern time….not in the Middle Ages…….not a mongol horde…..modern Europeans murdered 15 million people after taking away their guns…..using the same promises you are making here……

Then Russia…25 million….China…70 million …and today they still have slaves and are committing genocide…..

And you think we should give up our guns?

As the democrats release the most violent criminals over and over again turning their blue cities into hell holes?


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 19, 2022)

candycorn 

The truth hurts, huh?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> *Of course, any sane human being could look at this guy with his bag of dead cats, his online threats to rape people, his statements of fatalism, and quickly conclude that he shouldn't have been sold a gun.*
> 
> Since he didn’t show up at the gun store with the bag of dead cats, they had only the mandatory, Federal Background check to scrutinize the guy…..


And the bag of dead cats doesn't show up on the report.  Does it now.


2aguy said:


> And he only passed that background check because your god, government, failed.


Was he arrested for the dead cats?  I didn't see where he was. 


2aguy said:


> That bag of cats was a felony…..his online threats were also actionable by the police….


Yeah, if they knew about it.  Is the NRA suddenly for prying into someones' social media posts to see if they are a full blown gun nut or just a half cocked gun nut?  What about missing school?  Employment history?  What about his immediate family's history?  The purchases of firearms AND body armor?  Should all that be on the table according to the NRA?
"NRA opposes expanding firearm background check systems, because background checks don’t stop criminals from getting firearms, because some proposals to do so would deprive individuals of due process of law, and because NRA opposes firearm registration."

This psychopath should have been deprived....  But thanks to the NRA....someone is likely purchasing a firearm today that will be used to murder kids.

Hence the museum is a perfect reminder of what the 2nd Amendment has wrought.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Except for the fact that Europe murdered 15 million people in just 6 years….in modern time….not in the Middle Ages…….not a mongol horde…..modern Europeans murdered 15 million people after taking away their guns…..using the same promises you are making here……
> 
> Then Russia…25 million….China…70 million …and today they still have slaves and are committing genocide…..
> 
> ...


Oh wait, was this the same Europe that has something like a dozen mass shootings a year compared to our 800 +/- this year so far?  

LOL...


----------



## Abatis (Jul 20, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And up until he slaughtered the first kid, he was perfectly able to buy as many weapons has he could.  The bags of dead cats, since "due process" had not been carried out, means nothing.



I always enjoy it when my debate opponents demonstrate they have no functional knowledge of the subject being discussed.  It does create a dilemma; do I correct them with an answer that I know they will not understand?



candycorn said:


> Was anyone paying attention?  Maybe. Maybe not.  It doesn't matter.  Unless "due process" hasn't been served, it doesn't matter.



Don't throw around terms that have actual, important meaning and significance, when you don't understand them.



candycorn said:


> Of course, any sane human being could look at this guy with his bag of dead cats, his online threats to rape people, his statements of fatalism, and quickly conclude that he shouldn't have been sold a gun.



And we are back to the argument that all we need to do is listen to people who have no role in determining gun dispossession, to decide gun dispossession.  Again, examining that history could've been of some value to assess this person's mental state as part of the process to have a doctor or a judge make a decision in alignment with §922(g)(4).



candycorn said:


> But, thanks to the NRA and the gun nuts in the world...all of that is inadmissible as evidence.  It takes "due process" for someone to say "no" to this "monster", right?



Again, don't throw around terms that have actual, important meaning and significance, when you don't understand them.



candycorn said:


> Every other advanced nation on earth has outgrown the silly facade that you've described so beautifully above.  And this is why they don't the monthly massacres to remind us how wonderful the 2nd Amendment is.



I do not dispute that other societies that have had generational if not hundreds of years of firearm restriction from the general population, have lower rates of firearm death.

My argument is, it is ridiculous for anti-gunners here in the USA to think that, _that_ *POLITICAL* gun control can be reverse engineered and forced on the people here. 

You are plainly stating you want strict gun control (e.g., Japan) imposed of Americans to "save lives" but what you are really advocating for is civil war and millions of lives being sacrificed to implement statist, authoritarian leftist government. 

You act like you want to save lives but your radical hostility for anyone who opposes your political agenda, proves you are quite agreeable to *lots* of people getting killed, just as long as they are the "right" people.

See, even if you, personally, altruistically, believe in "gun control" because you, personally, altruistically, believe it will reduce crime, then you are what Lenin called a "useful idiot"; one who believes the party propaganda and works for the political takeover, without outward (or even conscious) support for it.

That's the very best that can be said for your idiotic, anti-American support for gun control, that you are a pathetic, ignorant, unwitting dupe.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 20, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Following through?  What legal maneuver could the "powers that be" have done?  Background checks don't include someone's social media history or how they conduct themselves on Playstation.



Most of these shooters have had several run ins with actual mental health providers, maybe they can use the laws that exist and try to adjudicate those they find a threat.

Or if there are earlier acts of violence actually prosecute them, giving them a record and maybe making them prohibited from owning firearms legally.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 20, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Oh wait, was this the same Europe that has something like a dozen mass shootings a year compared to our 800 +/- this year so far?
> 
> LOL...


LOL indeed . . .

You cite "our 800 +/- this year so far" but using what criteria?

The "mass shooting" complier that most DEMedia and gun control promoting politicians and activists point to, *The Gun Violence Archive*, puts the 2022 number so far, at 356 (as of July 18, 2022).

*GVA says* _for them_ to include an incident in their database as a "mass shooting" it has:

"a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident".​
That is a very loose criteria that lumps in many, many incidents that are *NOT* what regular people watching the news consider to be a "mass shooting".

Most European nations and certainly Australia and New Zeeland employ different criteria, some require an incident to cause five or more DEATHS before it is included in any tally of "mass shootings".

Even you, someone who so obviously lacks impartial critical thinking skills, should be able to recognize and understand and accept, that comparing to the USA, against a nation that would never think of considering an incident as a "mass shooting" that only results in *four people being injured*, is worse than disingenuous.

Show your goddamned work, cite and quote the different criteria's used, of the nations you are using to make your dishonest comparisons -- or just shut your lying pie-hole up . . .  "our 800 +/- this year so far", LOL indeed!.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 20, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Oh wait, was this the same Europe that has something like a dozen mass shootings a year compared to our 800 +/- this year so far?
> 
> LOL...



We haven't had 800 mass public shootings this year....you liar....

Europe?

They seem to like their government to do almost all of their mass murder.....

6 years in Europe they murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children....1939-1945......

More people murdered in 6 years than all gun murders in the United States in our whole 246 year history....

If you are generous and give 20,000 as the average gun murder number in the U.S per year....and that is way over the average......

4.92 million murdered with guns in the U.S. in 246 years....

Then.....

*German socialists


By genocide, the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, "euthanasia," starvation, exposure, medical experiments, and terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps, the Nazis murdered from 15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people, most likely 20,946,000 men, women, handicapped, aged, sick, prisoners of war, forced laborers, camp inmates, critics, homosexuals, Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Germans, Czechs, Italians, Poles, French, Ukrainians, and many others. Among them 1,000,000 were children under eighteen years of age.1*

And none of these monstrous figures even include civilian and military combat or war-deaths

http://[URL='http://hawaii.edu/powe...]http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM[/URL]


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> LOL indeed . . .
> 
> You cite "our 800 +/- this year so far" but using what criteria?
> 
> ...




Don't forget.....when the number of killed to qualify as a mass public shooting wasn't getting a high enough number of mass public shootings, obama lowered the number of killed to 3...

Not a lot of people know this...but he did it....

Also.......

Mark Fullman, who serves as national affairs editor at _Mother Jones_, which is hardly a publication that can be said to be on the “pro-gun” side of current political arguments, argues in _The New York Times _that the statistic that is being used right now is quite simply wrong and ought to be abandoned:

At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.


Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. 



Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others. Or that a late-night shootingon a street in Savannah, Ga., yesterday that injured three and killed one is in the same category as the madness that just played out in Southern California.

While all the victims are important, conflating those many other crimes with indiscriminate slaughter in public venues obscures our understanding of this complicated and growing problem.


 Everyone is desperate to know why these attacks happen and how we might stop them — and we can’t know, unless we collect and focus on useful data that filter out the noise.


https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/h...-this-year-only-if-youre-relying-on-bad-data/


Have There Really Been 355 ‘Mass Shootings’ This Year? Only If You’re Relying On Bad Data


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> LOL indeed . . .
> 
> You cite "our 800 +/- this year so far" but using what criteria?
> 
> ...




Also......Australia.....public shootings post ban and confiscation that didn't qualify as mass public shootings simply because the killer was a bad shot....

https://www.news.com.au/national/cr...e/news-story/ed86967684bfc2159b1c25b934c0ddb9
A siege in the Tasmanian city of Launceston has ended with police arresting a 24-year-old man and a woman, 40, after 33 shots were fired at police.
Police had brought in negotiators, a heavily armoured Bearcat truck and evacuated residents from the street during the 18 hour stand-off which began on Friday afternoon.

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


16 January 1998 to 15 June 2009 – Melbourne gangland killings – A series of 35 murders of crime figures and their associates that began with the slaying of Alphonse Gangitano in his home, most likely by Jason Moran, the latest victim being Des Moran who was murdered in Ascot Vale on 15 June 2009.




16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.
*3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.*
13 March 2000 – Millewa State Forest Murders – Barbara and Stephen Brooks and Stacie Willoughby were found dead, all three having been shot execution style and left in the forest.[60][61]
26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.

14 October 2002 – Dr. Margret Tobin, the South Australian head of Mental Health Services, was shot dead by Jean Eric Gassy as she walked out of a lift in her office building.
*21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.*
25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman are shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney which was the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families, 24-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom, up to 100 shots were fired into the house from four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.
26 July 2004 – Security guard Karen Brown shot dead armed robber William Aquilina in a Sydney carpark after he violently bashed her and stole the hotel's takings. Brown was charged with murder but acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.[66][67]

*18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]*
10 April 2010 – Rajesh Osborne shot and killed his three children, 12 year-old Asia, 10-year-old Jarius and 7-year-old Grace before killing himself in Roxburgh, Victoria.[_citation needed_]
28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.
1
29 January 2012 – Giovanni Focarelli, son of Comancheros gang member Vincenzo Focarelli, was shot dead whilst Vincenzo survived the fourth attempt on his life.[79]
*28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[citation needed]*
23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[_citation needed_]
15 December 2012 – Aaron Carlino murdered drug dealer Stephen Cookson in his East Perth home by shooting him twice in the head and then he cut up and dismembered his body. He buried his arms legs and torso in the backyard of his house and he wrapped his head in a plastic bag and dumped it on Rottnest Island. The head of Cookson was later found washed up on Rottnest Island by an 11-year-old girl. Carlino was convicted of the murder and was sentenced to life in prison.[_citation needed_]
*8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[*_*c*itation needed_]
29 July 2013 – Two bikie gang associates, Vasko Boskovski and Bassil Hijazi were shot dead in two separate shooting incidents minutes apart in South West Sydney. The previous week Bassil Hijazi had survived a previous attempt against his life after he was shot inside his car.[_citation needed_]
*9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre* – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[_citation needed_]
*22 October 2014 – Wedderburn shootings* – Ian Jamieson shot dead Peter Lockhart, Peter's wife Mary and Mary's son Greg Holmes on two farm properties in Wedderburn, Victoria over a property dispute. Jamieson surrendered to police after a three-and-a-half hour siege.[_citation needed_]
7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[_citation needed_]
12 November 2014 – Jamie Edwards and Joelene Joyce a married couple who were drug dealers are found shot dead in a car on a highway in the town of Moama, New South Wales.[86]
*15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]*
*27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder –* the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.
*10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.*


*2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting* On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.
---On 4 June 2019, a mass shooting occurred in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. The Northern Territory Police confirmed that four people were killed in the incident and another one was injured. A 45-year-old man, Benjamin Glenn Hoffmann, was arrested and subsequently charged with murder and attempted murder.[2][4][5]

----The *Osmington shooting* was a familicide in Osmington, Western Australia, Australia, on 11 May 2018, in which Peter Miles, a 61-year-old retired high school farm manager, shot dead his wife, daughter, and four grandchildren, before calling police and then committing suicide.[2] It is the worst shooting incident in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre of 1996.[3][4]


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 20, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For example, wherever there’s a mass shooting conservatives retreat to the ‘mental health’ redoubt.
> 
> If that’s the case, then let’s make sure every American has access to affordable mental healthcare by expanding Medicaid in all 50 states as authorized by the ACA.
> 
> ...


The Democrats are the ones who fought the mental health funding in Biden's gun control bill.

But, as important as it is to treat and/or lockup the current crop of crazy young men, it's equally important to quit creating crazy young men.

We need to quit teaching white children that they're evil and the cause of all that's bad in the world.  We need to quit teaching black children that white people are evil and are the cause of all that's bad in their world.  We need to quit teaching young black children to run around in the streets in their underwear kicking and hitting policemen.

The rash of mental health care that we see is solvable.  It is created intentionally and all we need do is to stop creating crazy people.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 20, 2022)

candycorn said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > There is no requirement for private sellers to go through a background check.
> ...


Wrong; not thanks to the NRA.  Thanks to the Constitution.  

For 202 years, nobody had to go through a background check and we didn't have the shootings we have today.  Neither the lack of background checks nor the existence of background checks have anything to do with the shootings we have seen.  Not a single mass shooting with an AR-15 would have been stopped by a background check and not a single mass shooting has been stopped by a background check.

MotherJones publishes a database of mass shootings.  In their database of 133 shootings, they list 16 as gun obtained illegally.  Of those, most were stolen, in some cases by killing family members to get them.  Of the 16, only two, purchased before Brady, were marked as illegally but came from a pawn shop.  Not sure why they say they were illegally purchased.  

Out of the entire list of 133, only 4 were purchased from a private individual where a background check was not required.  More guns than 4 were issued to the killer by their government agencies - Oklahoma National Guard  in one case and the Forest County Sheriff's Department in another case.

Background checks are totally pointless.

In fact, there were zero AR-15 mass shootings in the United States, probably in the world, before the Brady Bill was passed and zero before assault weapons weren't banned in 1994.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Also......Australia.....public shootings post ban and confiscation that didn't qualify as mass public shootings simply because the killer was a bad shot....
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/national/cr...e/news-story/ed86967684bfc2159b1c25b934c0ddb9
> A siege in the Tasmanian city of Launceston has ended with police arresting a 24-year-old man and a woman, 40, after 33 shots were fired at police.
> ...



But..but.. there are no guns in Australia.  Other than in the hands of criminals.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Also......Australia.....public shootings post ban and confiscation that didn't qualify as mass public shootings simply because the killer was a bad shot....
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/national/cr...e/news-story/ed86967684bfc2159b1c25b934c0ddb9
> A siege in the Tasmanian city of Launceston has ended with police arresting a 24-year-old man and a woman, 40, after 33 shots were fired at police.
> ...



Ok; here's a question for you.  When is the last time a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun in Australia or in the UK?    They stopped those evil good guys from killing.  The ladies on The View love that idea.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 20, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And up until he slaughtered the first kid, he was perfectly able to buy as many weapons has he could.  The bags of dead cats, since "due process" had not been carried out, means nothing.
> 
> Was anyone paying attention?  Maybe. Maybe not.  It doesn't matter.  Unless "due process" hasn't been served, it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...


There's  not a thing that can be done to stop mass shootings.  Even a massive police/military joint operation, going door to door and doing thorough searches of every structure in America won't stop them.  As 2aguy showed, they happen in countries where that was basically done.

Even if we built Trump's wall, that would be super effective, but not perfectly effective, people, guns, and drugs, would still make it into the country.

The only way to stop mass shootings is to arm the militia as was the intent of the Founders and the Constitution.  Every time a mass shooter pops up, three militiamen will pop up to take them out.  When they nearly always fail, they won't have the allure that they have to young isolated men today.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 20, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I'd still like to hear what law, other than very harsh, very long, prison sentences for violent crime, that anyone, right or left, thinks can be passed that would stop children from being killed



first offense for using a firearm in a crime.







ANY gun crime


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 20, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And the bag of dead cats doesn't show up on the report.  Does it now.
> 
> Was he arrested for the dead cats?  I didn't see where he was.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 21, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> first offense for using a firearm in a crime.
> 
> View attachment 672575
> 
> ...


I must disagree use a gun illegally you die period.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The Democrats are the ones who fought the mental health funding in Biden's gun control bill.
> 
> But, as important as it is to treat and/or lockup the current crop of crazy young men, it's equally important to quit creating crazy young men.
> 
> ...


Of course, we won’t hear anything from the right about expanding Medicaid to ensure every American has access to affordable mental healthcare – save that of continued and unwarranted opposition to expanding Medicaid.

And that’s because conservatives use ‘mental illness’ in an effort to avoid addressing the problem of gun crime and violence.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Of course, we won’t hear anything from the right about expanding Medicaid to ensure every American has access to affordable mental healthcare – save that of continued and unwarranted opposition to expanding Medicaid.
> 
> And that’s because conservatives use ‘mental illness’ in an effort to avoid addressing the problem of gun crime and violence.


Dumbass why do leftists DAs release violent criminals? You are a fucking lying idiot.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> You posted a very long opinion
> 
> One idea that I dont agree with is legalizing addictive drugs
> 
> ...


I posted a long opinion because you said that the immediate issue is gun violence - even over the Constitution.  I posted what it takes to save the right to keep and bear arms.  Yes, it takes a lot of keystrokes to say what needs saying.

It doesn't matter if people cannot control themselves and abuse drugs.  It's not the government's job to protect people from their own bad decisions; the government's job is to protect and preserve people's rights.  If they all die, the world is a better place.

But drugs were not made illegal to save people from themselves as you claim; they were made illegal to generate police power and  they were made illegal using racism as the motivator to convince people that they needed to be made illegal. 

People also showed that they can't handle alcohol responsibly.  I suppose you think we should make alcohol illegal.  Oh, wait we tried that.

Is the prohibition on drugs preventing people from abusing and misusing drugs?  Is it saving lives?  Of course not.  It's costing lives.  As you are fully aware, the gangs in the US, the gangs in Mexico, the gangs around the globe, exist and are funded by drugs - not because people buy and use drugs, they do but that's not the root cause.  The root cause funding gangs is because the drugs are illegal.  Dairy farmers, for instance, aren't killing people for territory.  Make baby formula illegal and they will be.

Not only is drugs being illegal not preventing the use of drugs, it's increasing the use of drugs.  Young people want to push the limits and they want to rebel.  And once they get into the drug culture, they begin to live outside the norms of law and order and of society and their drug use expands.  The war on drugs isn't a war on drugs at all, it's a war on Americans.

So what does all that sound like?  You know - laws that don't work but empower police to violate the Constitution at every turn?  It is just like gun laws.  Gun laws, like drug laws, do not prevent anyone except the law-abiding from getting a gun.

Then, just like the gun laws, there's the constitutional question of the drug laws.  Where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal Government to restrict what things a person puts into their own body?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> first offense for using a firearm in a crime.
> 
> View attachment 672575
> 
> ...


Wrong.  I'm not sure I'd agree even if it were the punishment for the first offense of any violent crime but that would be closer to reasonable - in other words, a gun crime is not a special kind of crime unless you agree that the gun IS the crime.  

Guns do not commit crimes; people commit crimes.  People killed with a knife are every bit as dead as a person killed with a gun.  Do they and their loved ones not deserve the same measure of justice as do those whose killers simply chose a different tool?

If an armed robber gets 5 years and an armed robber with a gun gets an extra 5, total of 10 years, then you're simply incentivizing robbery with a knife. If armed robbery deserves 10 years then give all armed robbers 10 years.

All those who support special add-ons for crimes with a gun are surrendering to the anti-gunner's philosophy that the gun itself is evil - otherwise why would it make any crime worse for having used it?  If you support the anti-gunner's philosophy that guns are inherently evil then that pretty much makes you an anti-gunner, doesn't it?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I must disagree use a gun illegally you die period.


Wrong again.  See my reply to Hugo Furst.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Of course, we won’t hear anything from the right about expanding Medicaid to ensure every American has access to affordable mental healthcare – save that of continued and unwarranted opposition to expanding Medicaid.
> 
> And that’s because conservatives use ‘mental illness’ in an effort to avoid addressing the problem of gun crime and violence.


A few posts back, you were saying Republicans won't do anything about gun crime and mental health.  Now you don't want to talk about mental  health because the only solution to gun crime that you are willing to talk about or consider is banning guns.  It really  has nothing to do with gun crime to you; it's just the guns themselves you want gone.  

You don't care if gun crime is replaced by knife crime, or slingshot crime, or baseball bat crime.  You don't care about crime; you just want guns gone from law abiding citizens.  

What you want most of all, is no more good guys with guns stopping mass shootings.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It doesn't matter if people cannot control themselves and abuse drugs. It's not the government's job to protect people from their own bad decisions; the government's job is to protect and preserve people's rights. If they all die, the world is a better place.
> 
> But drugs were not made illegal to save people from themselves as you claim; they were made illegal to generate police power and they were made illegal using racism as the motivator to convince people that they needed to be made illegal.


I think most of us prefer to live in a civil and ordered society rather than a concrete and asphalt jungle where its every man for himself, kill or be killed

Drug use is an agent of chaos

That was understood way back when dangerous and addictive drugs were first outlawed


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Wrong again.  See my reply to Hugo Furst.


No I'm not wrong


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

Did the FBI purposefully miss a million gun background checks?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> I think most of us prefer to live in a civil and ordered society rather than a concrete and asphalt jungle where its every man for himself, kill or be killed
> 
> Drug use is an agent of chaos
> 
> That was understood way back when dangerous and addictive drugs were first outlawed


Really?  You think that today's drug culture, government abuses, gangland murders, represent a civil and ordered society?

Fine.  Change the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to ban drugs and then ban them.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No I'm not wrong


Sure you are.  Unless you're a leftist blaming crime on the gun, unless you believe guns are inherently evil, then you're wrong to argue that getting killed by a gun makes you deader than getting killed by a knife.

Edit: and, by the way, I don't think that you are a leftist or that you believe those things.  That's why I think you're just misguided on the gun-crime add-ons.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 22, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Really?  You think that today's drug culture, government abuses, gangland murders, represent a civil and ordered society?
> 
> Fine.  Change the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to ban drugs and then ban them.


The only way to get rid of the gangs is to kill them

And thet applies whether drugs are legal or not

Better take the high road and battle drugs instead of giving in to them


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 22, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> The only way to get rid of the gangs is to kill them
> 
> And thet applies whether drugs are legal or not
> 
> Better take the high road and battle drugs instead of giving in to them


The best way to get rid of the gangs is to end prohibition.  That's why prohibition was ended but wasn't really ended because the gangs need prohibition so it was just recreated against the Mexicans - except that they used far less woke names for them in the racist government propaganda that was used to fire up the public to ban drugs.  The government needed the gangs to gain power and the gangs needed the prohibition to drive the customers to them instead of the corner market.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 22, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Sure you are.  Unless you're a leftist blaming crime on the gun, unless you believe guns are inherently evil, then you're wrong to argue that getting killed by a gun makes you deader than getting killed by a knife.
> 
> Edit: and, by the way, I don't think that you are a leftist or that you believe those things.  That's why I think you're just misguided on the gun-crime add-ons.


How am I blaming the gun when I say if you use a gun illegally you die, blaming the gun?


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 22, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The best way to get rid of the gangs is to end prohibition.  That's why prohibition was ended but wasn't really ended because the gangs need prohibition so it was just recreated against the Mexicans - except that they used far less woke names for them in the racist government propaganda that was used to fire up the public to ban drugs.  The government needed the gangs to gain power and the gangs needed the prohibition to drive the customers to them instead of the corner market.


Drugs like heroin are far more addictive and deadly than booze

So comparisons to Prohibition in the 1920’s are pointless


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 22, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Drugs like heroin are far more addictive and deadly than booze
> 
> So comparisons to Prohibition in the 1920’s are pointless


Alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs.

More people have died from alcoholism than any other drug.

Alcohol is so dangerous that the withdrawal symptoms can kill you.









						Why Alcohol Is The Deadliest Drug
					

There is a tendency to believe alcohol is ok, not dangerous, and an acceptable form of relaxation, but alcohol is actually the deadliest drug of all.




					www.addictioncenter.com


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 22, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs.


Yes, given enough time

For most drunks it takes years of abuse

But the addiction rate of heroin is measured in weeks to mere days


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 22, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Yes, given enough time
> 
> For most drunks it takes years of abuse
> 
> But the addiction rate of heroin is measured in weeks to mere days


Physical dependence takes longer than that even with heroin 

The whole one dose addict thing is a myth


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 22, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Physical dependence takes longer than that even with heroin
> 
> The whole one dose addict thing is a myth


Maybe not one dose

But heroin works much faster than booze


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 22, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Maybe not one dose
> 
> But heroin works much faster than booze


So what?

Alcohol is still the more destructive drug.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 22, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So what?
> 
> Alcohol is still the more destructive drug.


Its not even close

Heroin is worse


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 22, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Its not even close
> 
> Heroin is worse


No it isn't









						10 Reasons Why Alcohol is the Most Dangerous Drug in the World
					

Alcohol is often thought of as a harmless drug but it can ruin people’s lives. Find out what makes alcohol the most dangerous drug.




					thedawnrehab.com


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 22, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No it isn't
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose I must comment

If I had to dry out I cant think of a better place than Chang Mi where the beautiful women would take my mind off drinking

But I dont accept their opinion about alcohol vs hard drugs


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How am I blaming the gun when I say if you use a gun illegally you die, blaming the gun?


If you rob a liquor store with a gun you die but if you do it with a knife you don't die.

Using the gun makes the crime more evil?  Then the gun must be the evil be cause the criminal is the same.

You mean well, but you've succumbed to the leftist view that the gun is evil.  You seek to appease them, thinking that if we can make people afraid to use guns in crimes they won't come for your guns... But you're wrong.  It's not because people rob liquor stores with guns that they are coming for your guns.  They're coming for your guns not because they're afraid of the robber but because they're afraid of you.  

There's  no connection between crime and the left's want of your guns.  Keep them separate because they are separate; surely you can recognize that by the number of violent criminals, those who were convicted of using guns and those whose convictions did not include guns, that the left put back on the streets.  

Those who want to take your guns create the crime and then argue that because of the crime they have to take your gun but, in reality, they don't care a single iota about the crime; surely you know that.

Fight crime.  Fight rapes, and robberies and murders.  Fight to punish criminals so that criminals are afraid to be criminals.

As a separate thing, totally unrelated to crime, fight to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

Don't fall for the fraud that connects the two.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Drugs like heroin are far more addictive and deadly than booze
> 
> So comparisons to Prohibition in the 1920’s are pointless


The prohibition comparisons are actually identical. 

First, who cares that drugs are more addictive or deadly.  Having been raised by a whole slew of addicted parents and step parents and more step parents, I can tell you that alcohol is far more addictive than you know.  And more deadly than you know.  

Alcohol deaths - 140,000 per year according to the CDC








						Alcohol-Related Deaths
					

States and communities can reduce deaths due to excessive drinking.




					www.cdc.gov
				




Drug Deaths - 100,000 per year after huge annual increases the last couple years, according to the CDC






						Drug Overdose Deaths in the U.S. Top 100,000 Annually
					

National Center for Health Statistics




					www.cdc.gov
				




In addition to the 100,000 deaths, there are over 2000 gang to gang murders per year and the shooting of innocent bystanders is hugely increasing.  In addition, the gangs have announced a nationwide pact by many to shoot police on sight.









						Report shows gang-related murders of innocent people skyrocketing - as gangs make pact to kill cops
					

Democratic politicians scream for gun control, but the real, underlying problem is gangs and a lack of harsh penalties for their crimes.




					www.lawenforcementtoday.com
				





You're completely uninformed on the dangers to society of drugs versus alcohol.

You've bought in to the government fraud on the dangers of drugs (don't get me wrong, they're very dangerous) because the government wants prohibition.  They want a DEA, they want a bigger FBI.  They want no-knock warrants and militarized police.  They want more people using drugs than ever used them before the drug prohibition.  They want gang violence and inner-city slums and ghettos.  And you're their puppet, helping to deliver it all to them because you think you support law-and-order.   The war on drugs has not given us law and order; it gives us just what you claim you want stopped.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Maybe not one dose
> 
> But heroin works much faster than booze


You're just clinging on.  Let it go.  Alcohol is more deadly, by far.  You're just holding on to that drugs are evil anti-Constitution authoritarianism because, somewhere along the way of life, you fell for the lie.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> I suppose I must comment
> 
> If I had to dry out I cant think of a better place than Chang Mi where the beautiful women would take my mind off drinking
> 
> But I dont accept their opinion about alcohol vs hard drugs


You're the one with an opinion, you've been given the facts.

Thousands die in drug gang shootings.  Hundreds of innocent children because of drug prohibition.  The police run amuck over the Constitution and the rights of Americans in the name of a never-ending, losing, war on drugs, and you're pretending all of that is less important some stupid adult, with their own rights to be stupid, gets themselves addicted to heroin?

Heroin deaths hung around 2000 per year for a while until, for some reason I haven't looked to answer - probably Obama's open border since it started down again when Trump became President, but about 15 years ago it began to climb like crazy to 15000 a year.  So tell me how that prohibition you're so fond of is working out.









						Heroin overdose deaths U.S. 1999-2020 | Statista
					

This statistic presents the number of overdose deaths from heroin in the U.S.




					www.statista.com
				




When prohibition is ended, and drugs can even be regulated for purity, far fewer people will die of any drug - not that I care if they die; it's survival of the fittest, or non-survival for the most unfit.

This diversion started because you said the way to get rid of gangs was to kill them all.  But that's proven not to work; they've been killing themselves since the war on drugs began.

It's a lie that you want to get rid of gangs.  There's only one way to do it and that's to end prohibition.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> If you rob a liquor store with a gun you die but if you do it with a knife you don't die.
> 
> Using the gun makes the crime more evil?  Then the gun must be the evil be cause the criminal is the same.
> 
> ...


Stricter penalities for crimes using a gun. Shrugs.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're just clinging on.  Let it go.  Alcohol is more deadly, by far.  You're just holding on to that drugs are evil anti-Constitution authoritarianism because, somewhere along the way of life, you fell for the lie.


Alcohol is not the greatest threat to society as long as libs are pushing hard drug use


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're the one with an opinion, you've been given the facts.


“Facts” in your mind only


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 23, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Alcohol is not the greatest threat to society as long as libs are pushing hard drug use


Who said it was?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stricter penalities for crimes using a gun. Shrugs.


Because guns is evil.  Got it.  

 You're wrong; I've shown that you're wrong.  But you hang on to the politically correct  hatred for guns even as you defend them.  You might want to consider whether you're just a tool of the left when you do that?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Alcohol is not the greatest threat to society as long as libs are pushing hard drug use


Just let it go.  I know they told you in school that drugs are evil (and, yes, they are) and they told you that the government was saving the world from drugs (no, they're not), but you  have a brain and you're an adult who is supposed to be thinking for yourself now.

Why was the 21st Amendment ratified in 1933?  Because of the terrible lawlessness and violent crime that came from prohibition.  And yet you defend the prohibition on drugs while ignoring the terrible lawlessness and violent crime that comes with it.

You're making arguments not supported by the history and the data.  You're not even trying to back up your statements with links or facts. You're just holding on childishly to an argument that you learned as a child and accepted the brainwashing.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> “Facts” in your mind only


I gave you the CDC numbers on alcohol versus drugs, idiot.  Your stupidity is getting old.  

Just admit that you don't care about the Constitution, you're a big government authoritarian.  Constitution be damned.  Common sense be damned.  History be damned.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Just let it go.  I know they told you in school that drugs are evil (and, yes, they are) and they told you that the government was saving the world from drugs (no, they're not), but you  have a brain and you're an adult who is supposed to be thinking for yourself now.
> 
> Why was the 21st Amendment ratified in 1933?  Because of the terrible lawlessness and violent crime that came from prohibition.  And yet you defend the prohibition on drugs while ignoring the terrible lawlessness and violent crime that comes with it.
> 
> You're making arguments not supported by the history and the data.  You're not even trying to back up your statements with links or facts. You're just holding on childishly to an argument that you learned as a child and accepted the brainwashing.


Booze is far more engrained in our culture than heron or cocaine 

The only reason drug use is growing is because they are so addictive


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Because guns is evil.  Got it.
> 
> You're wrong; I've shown that you're wrong.  But you hang on to the politically correct  hatred for guns even as you defend them.  You might want to consider whether you're just a tool of the left when you do that?


You're not comprehending what I am saying if you keep saying I am wrong. If you commit a crime with a gun you die period. No repeat offenders, no giving a judge the option of early release.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're not comprehending what I am saying if you keep saying I am wrong. If you commit a crime with a gun you die period. No repeat offenders, no giving a judge the option of early release.


I'm comprehending what you're saying but I don't think you are.   You're saying that guns are evil so crimes committed with guns are more evil than crimes committed without guns.

You're saying the family and victim of someone killed with a knife do not deserve the same justice that the family and victim of someone killed with a gun.  You're saying that the gun made the crime worse so punish the gun.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 24, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Seems Fitting to honor the only tangible effect of the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 24, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I'm comprehending what you're saying but I don't think you are.   You're saying that guns are evil so crimes committed with guns are more evil than crimes committed without guns.
> 
> You're saying the family and victim of someone killed with a knife do not deserve the same justice that the family and victim of someone killed with a gun.  You're saying that the gun made the crime worse so punish the gun.


No you are not comprehending anything.  Never once did I say it's the guns fault. It's the individual's fault and they should pay with their lives. Commit a crime with a gun and you die. You need to stop pulling shit out of your ass and trying to make something out of nothing.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs.
> 
> More people have died from alcoholism than any other drug.
> 
> ...


You are correct that booze kills more people overall

But I think the reason for that is that drugs are not as readily available plus there is less legal jeopardy from alcohol than drugs


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No you are not comprehending anything.  Never once did I say it's the guns fault. It's the individual's fault and they should pay with their lives. Commit a crime with a gun and you die. You need to stop pulling shit out of your ass and trying to make something out of nothing.


And yet you continue to want to punish the gun.  Why punish the criminal more because of the tool?  If robbery deserves death, then why not kill the robber that uses a knife?  Because the other robber used a gun? Using a gun  is worse?  Then the gun must be evil.  

When you support gun add-ons for crime you support that the gun makes the crime worse and therefore taking guns makes crime less bad. Ban all guns and no one will commit a gun crime and the world is better - even though, violent crime continues, even gets worse, but at least they don't commit those evil gun crimes.

 You've taken the anti-gun bait.  You're acting woke and politically correct, saying just what the left wants you to say: that guns are evil.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 24, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> You are correct that booze kills more people overall
> 
> But I think the reason for that is that drugs are not as readily available plus there is less legal jeopardy from alcohol than drugs


Remember when this conversation was about prohibition and you wanted to kill all the gang members that are funded by that prohibition?  Of course killing them all wouldn't do a thing because there would just be others but you don't want to end the crime.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 24, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> And yet you continue to want to punish the gun.  Why punish the criminal more because of the tool?  If robbery deserves death, then why not kill the robber that uses a knife?  Because the other robber used a gun? Using a gun  is worse?  Then the gun must be evil.
> 
> When you support gun add-ons for crime you support that the gun makes the crime worse and therefore taking guns makes crime less bad. Ban all guns and no one will commit a gun crime and the world is better - even though, violent crime continues, even gets worse, but at least they don't commit those evil gun crimes.
> 
> You've taken the anti-gun bait.  You're acting woke and politically correct, saying just what the left wants you to say: that guns are evil.


Nothing I said punishes the gun. Just the criminal using the gun.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nothing I said punishes the gun. Just the criminal using the gun.



So, robbing a liquor store is OK; doing it with a gun is not.  The message is that the gun is evil.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 24, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Remember when this conversation was about prohibition and you wanted to kill all the gang members that are funded by that prohibition?


I do except I dont want to see all the gang members killed

Just enough to stop the drug trade

If its only 80% I’ll settle for that


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 24, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So, robbing a liquor store is OK; doing it with a gun is not. The message is that the gun is evil.


When the left is freaking out over gun deaths in the hood, robbing with a gun should be treated more harshly till libs move on to another crusade


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 24, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> I do except I dont want to see all the gang members killed
> 
> Just enough to stop the drug trade
> 
> If its only 80% I’ll settle for that


Yes use a gun in a crime and you pay with your life


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jul 25, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Doesn't matter to Right Wing Religious Nut Jobs, they only care about fetuses.


wait till ya see that museum!


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jul 25, 2022)

fncceo said:


> Imagine the carbon footprint from a mile-long procession of buses.
> 
> I wonder how those people sleep at night.
> 
> View attachment 670845


good call


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 25, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So, robbing a liquor store is OK; doing it with a gun is not.  The message is that the gun is evil.


Just like getting killed by someone using a gun is worse than the thousadns of other ways you could be murdered


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 25, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> When the left is freaking out over gun deaths in the hood, robbing with a gun should be treated more harshly till libs move on to another crusade


So you agree with the left that guns are evil.  You certainly support them controlling the conversation.

Robbing a store with a gun should get you more punishment not because the store is more robbed due to the choice of tool of intimidation but, instead, because the left hates guns.   At least you have finally admitted that you're a leftist gun controller.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Just like getting killed by someone using a gun is worse than the thousadns of other ways you could be murdered


And if you are going to murder someone, a gun is probably the least inhumane way to do it.  But even though it's less inhumane, I don't call for a lighter sentence for killing with a gun because you're not less dead, and you're not more dead, because of the tool.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 25, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So you agree with the left that guns are evil.


No

People are evil

Arrest the ones who are breaking the law with a gun


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 25, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> No
> 
> People are evil
> 
> Arrest the ones who are breaking the law with a gun


And don't arrest the ones who are breaking the law with an axe or a knife or antifreeze?


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 25, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> And don't arrest the ones who are breaking the law with an axe or a knife or antifreeze?


Dont be silly

Its liberals who are preoccupied with guns

But stupidly they want to take guns away from honest citizens because dishonest people commit crimes with guns


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 25, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> And don't arrest the ones who are breaking the law with an axe or a knife or antifreeze?


Let me spell it out for you this way

When we find someone illegally in procession of a gun even if they havent shot anyone yet treat them as if they will

Illegal procession of a gun should land that person in jail for 1-3 years no questions asked


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 25, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Dont be silly
> 
> Its liberals who are preoccupied with guns
> 
> But stupidly they want to take guns away from honest citizens because dishonest people commit crimes with guns


Then you must be a liberal because you're preoccupied with guns and not with crime.

So, I don't actually believe you are a gun controller with the same mission of disarmament that the left has, but that is the only outcome that can result from your appeasement. You want to show the left that we agree with them that gun crime is evil and that we can be good if they just won't take our guns.

You can punish gun crime separately, enhance gun crime penalties, talk about how awful gun crime is all you wish, and they're still coming for your guns.

If you care about crime, then care about crime.  A person is not less murdered with an axe, in fact, he was probably far more horribly tortured and harmed with an axe or a knife or a chainsaw than he would have been with a gun.

Quit supporting the left's view that guns are more evil and must be punished extra because they're so evil.


----------



## flan327 (Jul 25, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Doesn't matter to Right Wing Religious Nut Jobs, they only care about fetuses.


Unfortunately that seems to be true


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 25, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Unfortunately that seems to be true




You guys tell yourself that to justify killing babies....it isn't based on facts, truth or reality, but whatever you need to justify ending the life of tiny humans......

Conservatives/Republicans give more time and money to all charities than you guys do, and that is after you idiots take so much of their money in taxes for social programs that perpetuate horrible poverty and crime...

But go on, keep killing babies....


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 25, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Let me spell it out for you this way
> 
> When we find someone illegally in procession of a gun even if they havent shot anyone yet treat them as if they will
> 
> Illegal procession of a gun should land that person in jail for 1-3 years no questions asked


That's an interesting plan but it doesn't solve the problem.  The problem is that people who have committed violent crimes and are dangerous are released into society - even though we know that they're dangerous.  

Making it illegal for them to have guns doesn't stop them from committing crimes.  Sending them to prison for one to three years won't stop them from committing crimes; they already committed a crime once and they've already been to prison - or were released back on society without prison.

So what you're suggesting is that instead of locking people up for a long time for violent crimes, that we instead lock them up for short times, for made-up, victimless, crimes, potentially for doing no more than being able to protect themselves and their families.

Banning felony litterers from owning guns has not worked and litterers still litter.  And violent felons are still violent felons.  

Then there's that case of the violent felon who attacked the bodega worker in NYC.  He didn't have a gun but it didn't keep him from assaulting a law-abiding man or his girlfriend from stabbing the law abiding man.  Do you believe the reason the felon committed felony assault without a gun is because it was illegal for him to have one?  I mean, felony assault on a shopworker, that's OK, and that it was illegal didn't sway him but the gun ban did?

No, you argue for pointless laws, laws that wouldn't work even if they were enforced but, anyway, they will never be enforced.  

You keep operating under the fallacy that any gun law has the intent of making American streets safer for the people of the United States.  The purpose of gun laws is to make American streets safer for the government and the deep state.

If we were to eliminate all gun crime in America, they're still coming after your guns.  Do you understand that?  With them, just as with you, it's not about the crime; it's about the gun.  You have far more in common with them than you do with  the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 25, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Then you must be a liberal because you're preoccupied with guns and not with crime.
> 
> So, I don't actually believe you are a gun controller with the same mission of disarmament that the left has, but that is the only outcome that can result from your appeasement. You want to show the left that we agree with them that gun crime is evil and that we can be good if they just won't take our guns.
> 
> ...


You are really blowing smoke and shoveling bullshit but it wont work on me

The left wants to take all the guns, but will settle for whatever they - you - can get 

It may happen that if we put enough criminals away for mere illegal gun procession then others may start carrying other weapons such as knives

If so we will deal with them as necessary


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 25, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> That's an interesting plan but it doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that people who have committed violent crimes and are dangerous are released into society - even though we know that they're dangerous.


I dont expect you to read all my comments but I am willing to jail as many people as necessary to solve the crime problem


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 25, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> I dont expect you to read all my comments but I am willing to jail as many people as necessary to solve the crime problem


Then jail them for the crimes they committed instead of making up new crimes and jailing them for 1-3 years for not being violent.  The answer is to jail them for years for their violent crime in the first place.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 25, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> You are really blowing smoke and shoveling bullshit but it wont work on me


Unfortunately, you're probably right.  All the logic, common sense, and reality won't get you to change from being a gun controller.


Mac-7 said:


> The left wants to take all the guns, but will settle for whatever they - you - can get


Nice distraction, calling me the gun controller as your defense for supporting ever expanding arms control.  You still cannot provide any constitutional authority for banning litterers, or anyone else for that matter, from owning guns but don't let that stop you.  Not only are you anti-2nd Amendment, you're anti-Constitution.


Mac-7 said:


> It may happen that if we put enough criminals away for mere illegal gun procession then others may start carrying other weapons such as knives
> 
> If so we will deal with them as necessary


So you propose we follow the UK model for removing the right to keep and bear arms, where it starts with criminals' guns, then goes to everyone's guns, then to everyone's knives, and then to everyone's pointy object of any kind.  In fact, it's illegal to carry a socket wrench in the UK if you don't have an acceptable need - and fixing your car on the side of the road is not an acceptable need; I can't count how many times I did that when I was  young.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 25, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Then jail them for the crimes they committed instead of making up new crimes


Illegally carrying a firearm is not a “new crime”.   

We are enforcing an existing law


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 26, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Illegally carrying a firearm is not a “new crime”.
> 
> We are enforcing an existing law


We really are not enforcing gun laws.

In fact gun charges are usually the first to be dropped in plea deals.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We really are not enforcing gun laws.
> 
> In fact gun charges are usually the first to be dropped in plea deals.


Thank you

That is the point i’m making to gun grabbing libs

They want to punish honest citizens while pandering to criminals


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 26, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> That is the point i’m making to gun grabbing libs
> 
> They want to punish honest citizens while pandering to criminals



  It always comes out that they are on the side of criminals, and against the side of human beings.

  Always.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Illegally carrying a firearm is not a “new crime”.
> 
> We are enforcing an existing law


It's a made up crime. It isn't a crime of natural or common law.  It is a made-up crime, created as a crime solely for the purpose of harassing people who weren't jailed for their actual crimes.

How's it working for keeping lawbreakers from breaking the law?  Working well, is it?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Thank you
> 
> That is the point i’m making to gun grabbing libs
> 
> They want to punish honest citizens while pandering to criminals


That may be the point you're trying to make but the point you're actually making is that murder, rape, armed robbery, etc., are all OK but having a gun is evil.  It's a very anti-gun philosophy and does not work, can never work.  It is based on the idea that lawbreakers follow the law.   Do you see the idiocy in that idea?  Lawbreakers don't follow the law.  That's why we call them lawbreakers.  

It's a pointless, feel-good, law, intended to get otherwise conservative, patriots, to accept some government infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.  

Once they had you hooked on the idea that the Constitution doesn't matter if it's a violation you like, all they had to do was go from violent felons to all felons, to misdemeanor domestic violence, to anyone whose ex-wife or girlfriend filed a restraining order against them.  See how it grows?  Next, of course - and some here have openly called for it, is to add the no-fly list, which people are put on with zero due process.    

You've accepted the leftist bait,  hook, line, and sinker, and now you're arguing their gun control for them, completely ignoring the unconstitutionality of it because  you like the idea of it.  Just don't complain when they take further unconstitutional steps that you don't like the idea of; you asked them to do it and gave them permission.  You're a gun-controller.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 26, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> *It's a made up crime. It isn't a crime of natural or common law.  *It is a made-up crime, created as a crime solely for the purpose of harassing people who weren't jailed for their actual crimes.
> 
> How's it working for keeping lawbreakers from breaking the law?  Working well, is it?


Its a crime and the source of most gun violence


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Its a crime and the source of most gun violence


Wow.  You really do think guns are evil, don't you?  Guns are the source of most gun violence.  Got it.  Here I always thought criminals were the source of most gun violence.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 26, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Wow.  You really do think guns are evil, don't you?  Guns are the source of most gun violence.  Got it.  Here I always thought criminals were the source of most gun violence.


You are not as clever as you think you are

Libs like you hope that gun violence in the hood will gove you an excuse to grab guns everywhere


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> You are not as clever as you think you are
> 
> Libs like you hope that gun violence in the hood will gove you an excuse to grab guns everywhere


I'm the one vociferously defending the right to keep and bear arms and "shall not be infringed" while you're conceding to the government to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms when you like it, and you're calling me the leftist?

You're a gun-rights appeaser.  If you surrender some rights, give the gun controllers some wins, they'll take less of our guns.  No, you're exactly where the left wants you.  They like to throw out how many gun owners and gun rights defenders still agree with them on "reasonable gun control".  When they say that gun owners agree with them, it's you about whom they are speaking.  You enable them, you empower them, you are them and you are either too stupid to know it or you know it and you just don't want to admit it.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 26, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I'm the one vociferously defending the right to keep and bear arms


Yeah, for criminals

Thats insane


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Yeah, for criminals
> 
> Thats insane


No, I'm not defending felons right to bear arms; I'm defending YOUR right to keep and bear arms.  I don't care at all whether violent felons have guns, breathe air, or see the outside of a prison for the rest of their life.

What I am defending is the Constitution.  By standing our ground against every violation of the Constitution by the Government, we hope to preserve our constitutional republic.  By defending the Constitution, we defend the right to keep and bear arms. 

You, unfortunately, do not care about the Constitution unless it interferes with your own rights.  By the time they get to your rights, they will have effectively nullified the Constitution and they will have done it with not just your permission, but at your request and with your help.

What you also do not understand is that, considered on its own, the 2nd Amendment is not even the most important of the constitutionally protected rights.  It might actually rank near the bottom. 

If I have grocery stores for food, and have all of my other rights, other than the right to keep and bear arms, like fair trials, the right to an attorney, no unreasonable searches or seizures, well protected property rights, those are the the most important rights, far more important, considered one against the other, against the right to keep and bear arms.

So, why then do we fight so hard to preserve all the rights, including the right to keep and bear arms?  Because the right to keep and bear arms is how we protect all those other rights.

So the point of that "importance" discussion is, if we do not defend the Constitution, it's not just our guns we'll lose, we'll lose those other critical rights.  There will be a lot more felons denied the right to keep and bear arms because everyone who protests against the left, or for Trump, or for the next Republican, might all be enemies of the State.  Everyone who violates some sexual deviant pervert's chosen pronouns, will be convicted of a hate crime - in fact, according to the left, using other than an individuals requested pronouns is violence so when you become a convicted felon for using he, him, his, or she, her, hers,  you'll no longer be allowed to possess a gun. 

By that time (and I mean years or a decade, not decades or a century)  you probably also won't  need a trial for a hate crime.  No one will speak out to defend a transphobe.  

Well, there will be some standing up for your rights;  I will stand up for you.  Others, those who defend the right to keep and bear arms today, will also stand up for you, but you, yourself, will be calling for prison because everyone knows that transphobes don't deserve rights.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 26, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> No, I'm not defending felons right to bear arms; I'm defending YOUR right to keep and bear arms.  I don't care at all whether violent felons have guns, breathe air, or see the outside of a prison for the rest of their life.
> 
> What I am defending is the Constitution.  By standing our ground against every violation of the Constitution by the Government, we hope to preserve our constitutional republic.  By defending the Constitution, we defend the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> ...


As usual you are babbling bullshit and I’m not buying any of it


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 27, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> As usual you are babbling bullshit and I’m not buying any of it



I wouldn't expect you to buy it; it doesn't support your gun control agenda.


----------

