# Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world



## ElmerMudd (Dec 5, 2021)

Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.

We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


----------



## Leweman (Dec 5, 2021)

No one wants to ban all guns.  Just the guns that actually protect individuals.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 5, 2021)

There's like 8 people out of 330,000,000 who want to ban all guns.


----------



## Meister (Dec 5, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> There's like 8 people out of 330,000,000 who want to ban all guns.


OH, you might be right, although, there is a boat load of people who
want to ban the ammunition for those legal guns.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


In other words, we live in a world where common sense is not common.  
Wait!  What?!


----------



## playtime (Dec 5, 2021)

Meister said:


> OH, you might be right, although, there is a boat load of people who
> want to ban the ammunition for those legal guns.



i like chris rock's solution:


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


"Common sense" gun laws must be demonstrably necessary and demonstrably effective - else, they make no sense at all.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA







So that means all civil law enforcement agencies along with all government and private security will be following the same gun regulations right?

After all if it's deemed the weapon or other equipment that should only be in the purview of the military, if that, then those agencies and companies will have to give them up also.

I'm sure the National Guard will appreciate the local police force here turning all their AR-15's over to them since that's what the police in this city have in stock.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## night_son (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA



And you anti-gunners are fine and dandy with police, the military, federal LE agencies and private security details packing any level of firepower in whatever public spaces. When it comes to small arms, the People must be allowed to possess the same firearms as the government. 

Years ago, I took my then two young nieces to a carnival at their elementary school in rural Pennsylvania. One of the local cops on patrol there was packing a Glock 18 loaded up with a 32 round magazine. What in the hell does a cop assigned to a small rural police department need with a fully automatic handgun? If the government can have it, carry it, and is licensed to use it, then so should the public.


----------



## norwegen (Dec 5, 2021)

Guns are people, too (they kill people, after all), and everyone deserves to live in America.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


Actually, I was being sarcastic.  Gun control is the real oxymoron.


----------



## playtime (Dec 5, 2021)




----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 5, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> There's like 8 people out of 330,000,000 who want to ban all guns.


This is an exaggeration -- the real number is 9.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> …to develop common sense gun regulations to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


I was pretty much with you until you used  this phrase.

“Common Sense Gun Laws” and “gun culture” are left-wing phrases used most often  by those who tend not to understand what guns are, their proper place in society. That makes me question whether you truly come to the discussion without a bias.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 5, 2021)

night_son said:


> And you anti-gunners are fine and dandy with police, the military, federal LE agencies and private security details packing any level of firepower in whatever public spaces. When it comes to small arms, the People must be allowed to possess the same firearms as the government.
> 
> Years ago, I took my then two young nieces to a carnival at their elementary school in rural Pennsylvania. One of the local cops on patrol there was packing a Glock 18 loaded up with a 32 round magazine. What in the hell does a cop assigned to a small rural police department need with a fully automatic handgun? If the government can have it, carry it, and is licensed to use it, then so should the public.


Nightson says "When it comes to small arms, the People must be allowed to possess the same firearms as the government."
Wrong
It is "arms" not "small arms". The intent of the 2nd amendment was lost long ago. As arms advanced and became more deadly, people and state militias  were not allowed the same arms as the Federal Government.
If you are advocating for the true intent of the 2nd amendment, you should be asking for every arm the US military has.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 5, 2021)

Anathema said:


> I was pretty much with you until you used  this phrase.
> 
> “Common Sense Gun Laws” and “gun culture” are left-wing phrases used most often  by those who tend not to understand what guns are, their proper place in society. That makes me question whether you truly come to the discussion without a bias.


Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check. Private sells included.
That is common sense.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 5, 2021)

norwegen said:


> Guns are people, too (they kill people, after all), and everyone deserves to live in America.


Is this suppose to be funny?


----------



## Anathema (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check. Private sells included.


Where have I said they shouldn’t (or should)?

Your post points out the largest problem with this discussion. Everyone assumes they know the other person’s position before that person states their position.


----------



## Batcat (Dec 5, 2021)

night_son said:


> And you anti-gunners are fine and dandy with police, the military, federal LE agencies and private security details packing any level of firepower in whatever public spaces. When it comes to small arms, the People must be allowed to possess the same firearms as the government.
> 
> Years ago, I took my then two young nieces to a carnival at their elementary school in rural Pennsylvania. One of the local cops on patrol there was packing a Glock 18 loaded up with a 32 round magazine. What in the hell does a cop assigned to a small rural police department need with a fully automatic handgun? If the government can have it, carry it, and is licensed to use it, then so should the public.


I would imagine the Glock 18 is a handful to shoot.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 5, 2021)

Anathema said:


> Where have I said they shouldn’t (or should)?
> 
> Your post points out the largest problem with this discussion. Everyone assumes they know the other person’s position before that person states their position.


I was telling you my position. That is my common sense. Is it yours also.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I was telling you my position. That is my common sense. Is it yours also.


Under the current system of background checks, No. 

I do believe a system could be created where my answer would change. I don’t see that happening any time soon.


----------



## yidnar (Dec 5, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> There's like 8 people out of 330,000,000 who want to ban all guns.


and they live in DC !


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns


All three of them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 5, 2021)

Meister said:


> OH, you might be right, although, there is a boat load of people who
> want to ban the ammunition for those legal guns.


This is a lie.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 5, 2021)

playtime said:


> View attachment 572162


Eight years of conservatives lying about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’

It never happened.

Another Democratic president and conservatives are lying again about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated’ – and again it won’t happen.


----------



## 22lcidw (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check. Private sells included.
> That is common sense.


But who is the arbiter of those checks? Who makes more and more rules and laws up squeezing the rights away from people? Agenda after agenda is the same with Progs. The abortion industry has expanded so much that a baby can actually be born and killed at full term.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 5, 2021)

night_son said:


> And you anti-gunners are fine and dandy with police, the military, federal LE agencies and private security details packing any level of firepower in whatever public spaces. When it comes to small arms, the People must be allowed to possess the same firearms as the government.
> 
> Years ago, I took my then two young nieces to a carnival at their elementary school in rural Pennsylvania. One of the local cops on patrol there was packing a Glock 18 loaded up with a 32 round magazine. What in the hell does a cop assigned to a small rural police department need with a fully automatic handgun? If the government can have it, carry it, and is licensed to use it, then so should the public.


Wrong.

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ insurrectionist dogma.

“…the insurrectionist interpretation of the Declaration of Rights is fundamentally flawed. An historically sound understanding of the Second Amendment's English heritage belies the proposition that the Second Amendment was intended to grant an individual right to keep or bear arms against governmental tyranny.”



			http://malvinartley.com/PDF%20Files/THE%20HIDDEN%20HISTORY%20OF%20THE%20SECOND%20AMENDMENT.pdf


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 5, 2021)

22lcidw said:


> But who is the arbiter of those checks? Who makes more and more rules and laws up squeezing the rights away from people? Agenda after agenda is the same with Progs. The abortion industry has expanded so much that a baby can actually be born and killed at full term.


The people and the government are the same – laws are enacted at the behest of the people reflecting the will of the people; acts of government reflecting the will of the people are presumed to be Constitutional, in no manner ‘taking’ from the people their rights.

And when the people err and enact laws repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely affected are at liberty to seek relief in the courts; and if such acts are found to be unlawful, invalidated.

Likewise, when the people enact measures placing limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no rights are ‘taken away’; limits and restrictions consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence neither ‘violate’ nor ‘infringe upon' the Second Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 5, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> This is an exaggeration -- the real number is 9.


This is not an exaggeration:
For every gun used to commit murder, at least 10 are used for self-defense.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check. Private sells included


Simple:
The state cannot show probable cause - or reasonable suspicion - to justify the restraint imposed by same.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is not an exaggeration:
> For every gun used to commit murder, at least 10 are used for self-defense.


Original post stated that only 8 people in USA want to ban all guns.  My reply was that the number is not so small -- I am #9.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 5, 2021)

Anathema said:


> Under the current system of background checks, No.
> 
> I do believe a system could be created where my answer would change. I don’t see that happening any time soon.


I feel you are making it too complex losing any common sense in your position


----------



## Lesh (Dec 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Eight years of conservatives lying about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’
> 
> It never happened.
> 
> Another Democratic president and conservatives are lying again about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated’ – and again it won’t happen.


Eight years?

It's been going on for decades.

I sure don't  want all guns banned. Hell I own four of em.

I believe the ammosexuals on this forum think I'm pretty far left


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Eight years of conservatives lying about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’
> 
> It never happened.
> 
> Another Democratic president and conservatives are lying again about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated’ – and again it won’t happen.



Maybe if the left shut their mouths about getting our guns, it wouldn't be an issue.  Read Dementia's plan on guns in this country while he was running.  It used to be on his website, but perhaps he removed it after he supposedly won.  But I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check. Private sells included.
> That is common sense.



Telling the government which guns, how many guns, what kind of guns you own is not common sense.  

Guns are not a problem until somebody uses one to commit a crime.  But instead of going after the criminal, we go after guns instead.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 5, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA



Give us an example of common sense gun regulations that will only work on criminals and not interfere with law abiding citizens to own firearms.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Dec 6, 2021)

night_son said:


> And you anti-gunners are fine and dandy with police, the military, federal LE agencies and private security details packing any level of firepower in whatever public spaces. When it comes to small arms, the People must be allowed to possess the same firearms as the government.
> 
> Years ago, I took my then two young nieces to a carnival at their elementary school in rural Pennsylvania. One of the local cops on patrol there was packing a Glock 18 loaded up with a 32 round magazine. What in the hell does a cop assigned to a small rural police department need with a fully automatic handgun? If the government can have it, carry it, and is licensed to use it, then so should the public.





night_son said:


> What in the hell does a cop assigned to a small rural police department need with a fully automatic handgun?


a Glock 18 is not a fully automatic handgun, unless it was illegally modified.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I feel you are making it too complex losing any common sense in your position


Again, without details you assume my system is more complex than the current system. In fact my system would utilize currently issued state id’s and drivers licenses and be overseen in a single, National database. Far less complex than the current system.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> There's like 8 people out of 330,000,000 who want to ban all guns.



And that is a lie......the entire leqdership of the democrat party wants to ban guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> This is an exaggeration -- the real number is 9.




Lives saved from crime = a large portion of the 1.2 million times a year guns are used by law abiding Americans to stop rapes, roberries, murders, beatings and stabbings.......according to the CDC....

One estimate puts the number of lives saved at about 175,000 a year.....

Can you tell which numbers are bigger?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check. Private sells included.
> That is common sense.



No, it isnt.  The only way to verify a background check on a private sale is to register all guns......that is the real goal of universal background checks.....a trojan horse to get gun registration.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Eight years of conservatives lying about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’
> 
> It never happened.
> 
> Another Democratic president and conservatives are lying again about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated’ – and again it won’t happen.




obama packed the courts with the same judges upholding bans on AR-15s and 30 round magazines......he didn't want to lose seats in congress to anti-gun votes, so he simply packed the lower courts with idiots like you....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> This is an exaggeration -- the real number is 9.




600 million guns in private hands......over 21.25 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



American use those legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...



Gun deaths...the truth....



2019...



Gun murder...10,235



Gun accidents...486



Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.





Gun suicides... 23,491...





Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.



Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





* that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—*



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





*So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.*
*
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
*
*So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Original post stated that only 8 people in USA want to ban all guns.  My reply was that the number is not so small -- I am #9.


Fact remains:
For every gun used to commit murder, at least 10 are used for self-defense.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is not an exaggeration:
> For every gun used to commit murder, at least 10 are used for self-defense.


Please document that m14 shooter.
Most gun owners are not cowards but too many gun owners are fearful cowards. They feel they need a gun to protect them from everybody and everything in their life. The idiots think the paper boy has not robbed them and attacked them because they have a gun. They are fearful of commonsense regulations.
Many of these same cowards fear the COVID vaccine. They are a sorry bunch.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 600 million guns in private hands......over 21.25 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bullshit
There are plenty of reasons to have a gun for protection but in truth private ownership, more often, is used to intimidate, shootings in domestic arguments, suicide etc.. You are more likely to be harmed by a gun, if you own a gun.









						Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
					

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…




					www.hsph.harvard.edu


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No, it isnt.  The only way to verify a background check on a private sale is to register all guns......that is the real goal of universal background checks.....a trojan horse to get gun registration.....


Why not register all guns. We register all cars, all houses.
You are a paranoid coward that thinks then government will come for your guns. IDIOT


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Please document that m14 shooter.


According to rabidly anti-gun Violence Prevention Center, at least 100,000 firearms are used each year in self-defense.
Across the same time period, around 9500 firearms were used to commit murder
~100,000 / ~9500 = ~10

https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable20.pdf - page 6








						Expanded Homicide Data Table 4
					





					ucr.fbi.gov


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why not register all guns


Because it is imposisble to soundly demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, doing so.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check.


Simple:
The state cannot show probable cause - or reasonable suspicion - to justify the restraint imposed by same.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lives saved from crime = a large portion of the 1.2 million times a year guns are used by law abiding Americans to stop rapes, roberries, murders, beatings and stabbings.......according to the CDC....
> 
> One estimate puts the number of lives saved at about 175,000 a year.....
> 
> Can you tell which numbers are bigger?


This does not sound realistic.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

I can live without alcohol, tobacco, or driving a car.  For a Moderately Autistic person, driving is an unreasonable risk.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> This does not sound realistic.


To the willfully ignorant, sure.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

The problem with gun control is that the gun control advocates only want to enact laws which adversely affect law abiding citizens. 

We need to aggressively target the criminals. The punishments for gun crimes need to be so severe and inhuman that no one would want to even chance getting caught committing a crime while in the possession of a firearm...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Bullshit
> There are plenty of reasons to have a gun for protection but in truth private ownership, more often, is used to intimidate, shootings in domestic arguments, suicide etc.. You are more likely to be harmed by a gun, if you own a gun.
> 
> 
> ...




Wrong...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## Canon Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Give us an example of common sense gun regulations that will only work on criminals and not interfere with law abiding citizens to own firearms.



Easy: Increase the punishments for gun crimes.

Now, tit-for-tat: Give me one gun regulation which _won't _adversely affect law abiding citizens but _will _affect _only _criminals...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why not register all guns. We register all cars, all houses.
> You are a paranoid coward that thinks then government will come for your guns. IDIOT




Because gun registration has always led to gun confiscation.......

Paranoid?

Tell that to the Germans, the French, the British, the Canadians, New Yorkers, Californians, Australians, New Zealanders, Russians............gun registration first, then confiscation...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Because gun registration has always led to gun confiscation.......
> 
> Paranoid?
> 
> Tell that to the Germans, the French, the British, the Canadians, New Yorkers, Californians, Australians, New Zealanders, Russians............gun registration first, then confiscation...



Gun control advocates always say that they want more laws so that we'll be safe.

I invite any gun control advocate to explain how registering a firearm keeps anyone safe...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> The problem with gun control is that the gun control advocates only want to enact laws which adversely affect law abiding citizens.
> 
> We need to aggressively target the criminals. The punishments for gun crimes need to be so severe and inhuman that no one would want to even chance getting caught committing a crime while in the possession of a firearm...



It's a stupid concept.  If they did a study and found that most drunk drivers drove Ford Taurus's, and started to make it harder for drunks and sober people alike to get Taurus's, nothing would get accomplished. 

If you own a Taurus, you must register it with the federal government.  To reduce accidents with Taurus's, make the gasoline tank smaller.  You must get a background check to own a Taurus.  The DUI statistics would never change, and if anything, probably get worse.  

Yet anti-gunners think this exact same concept would work with guns.  Like the Ford Taurus examples, things have gotten worse if anything.  

People get busted illegally carrying a concealed weapon, and they are back on the street within a few days.  A stolen gun?  Maybe a few months in jail.  Same with being in possession of a gun as a felon.  Very little happens to these people.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> This does not sound realistic.



And why doesn't it?  Because the MSM never reports those stories.  At best on a slow news day, your local news may make mention of it.  But it happens dozens of times every single day in this country.  

The MSM only reports crime with guns.  When a gun is not used to kill a bunch of people like that criminal in Wisconsin that went to a white suburb to kill as many white people that he could with his car, they made sure that story died in less than a week.  Now imagine if he used a gun to kill 6 and injure 40.  It would be the talk of the news well into next year.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why not register all guns. We register all cars, all houses.
> You are a paranoid coward that thinks then government will come for your guns. IDIOT



And why not?  Did you read Biden's gun plans when he was running for President?  I did.

He wanted all gun owners to have to get a federal license to own the guns they've owned for years or even generations.  He wanted to force every gun owner to have a psychological exam at your cost of $800.00.  Some anti-gun shrink would interview you, your employer, your coworkers, your neighbors, your ex-wife, everybody.  Then he would make a determination as to whether you could own a gun or not based on their answers.

Mind you Dementia never carried through with his plans, but the Congress did try to pass his measures.  That's why you don't want the federal government to know about your guns.  If he got his way, you would be getting a notice that you must get this federal license for the guns you legally own, or else.........


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Bullshit
> There are plenty of reasons to have a gun for protection but in truth private ownership, more often, is used to intimidate, shootings in domestic arguments, suicide etc.. You are more likely to be harmed by a gun, if you own a gun.
> 
> 
> ...



You are more likely to be harmed or killed in a car if you own a car.  What's your point?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Eight years of conservatives lying about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’
> 
> It never happened.
> 
> Another Democratic president and conservatives are lying again about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated’ – and again it won’t happen.



Listen to the thundering applause.

You can shut the fuck up now.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Bullshit
> There are plenty of reasons to have a gun for protection but in truth private ownership, more often, is used to intimidate, shootings in domestic arguments, suicide etc.. You are more likely to be harmed by a gun, if you own a gun.
> 
> 
> ...







__





						Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC
					

What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.




					www.cdc.gov
				




_Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime or victimization.

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon *indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.*_


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Eight years of conservatives lying about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


Were the various democrats who campaigned on these things lying to us?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ insurrectionist dogma.
> 
> ...


All that bullshit spanning 100 pages only to say that "the words of the 2nd Amendment don't mean what they say."


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And why doesn't it?  Because the MSM never reports those stories.  At best on a slow news day, your local news may make mention of it.  But it happens dozens of times every single day in this country.


Given the low number of justifiable homicides, I find it unbelievable that more then a few hundred lives per year are saved with guns.

Most of us have seen hundreds of action movies, thus our perception is biased.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Given the low number of justifiable homicides, I find it unbelievable...


The fact you refuse to believe the facts says more about you than it does the facts.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Given the low number of justifiable homicides, I find it unbelievable that more then a few hundred lives per year are saved with guns.
> 
> Most of us have seen hundreds of action movies, thus our perception is biased.


Take that up with the CDC and the source it cites stating that defensive use of firearms range from 60,000 to 2.5 million per year.





__





						Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC
					

What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.




					www.cdc.gov
				




You may be mistakenly ignoring non-shooting incidents, which occur regularly.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Take that up with the CDC and the source it cites stating that defensive use of firearms rage from 60,000 to 2.5 million per year.


Perhaps almost all these accidents are prevention of a minor crime like common assault.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The fact you refuse to believe the facts says more about you than it does the facts.


Most Americans confuse Reality and Action Movies.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most Americans confuse Reality and Action Movies.


None of this changes the fact the fact you refuse to believe the facts says more about you than it does the facts.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Perhaps almost all these accidents are prevention of a minor crime like common assault.


Demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Demonstrate this to be true.


Minor assault is an order of magnitude more common then Aggravated Assault.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> According to rabidly anti-gun Violence Prevention Center, at least 100,000 firearms are used each year in self-defense.





			https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable20.pdf
		
_The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear. In 2018, guns killed nearly 40,000 Americans with many more wounded, leaving an untold _​_number of lives traumatized and communities shattered.15 Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale _​_offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun _​_lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style _​_semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.16   _​


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Minor assault is an order of magnitude more common then Aggravated Assault.


As I thought - you cannot demonstrate your claim to be true.
As usual.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> _When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.16   _​


And yet, it happens at least 10x more often than a gun is used to commit murder.
If >100,000/year is rare, what is <10,000/year?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, it happens at least 10x more often than a gun is used to commit murder.
> If >100,000/year is rare, what is <10,000/year?


It depends.

One million times a minor assault is prevented is *rare*.

Thirty thousand fatal shootings per year is *frequent*.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable20.pdf
> 
> _The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear. In 2018, guns killed nearly 40,000 Americans with many more wounded, leaving an untold _​_number of lives traumatized and communities shattered.15 Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale _​_offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun _​_lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style _​_semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.16   _​


Thank you!

This is an updated version of a resource I use.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> It depends.


It doesn't.
At least not to the intellectually honest.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Really, the price other people are paying for the ease of access to firearms in the US is considered a bargain by those too selfish to make a sacrifice for the common good. This will not change, the thread so far being an excellent illustration of how unAmerican such thinking would be.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Thank you!
> This is an updated version of a resource I use.


Yes.  The one that demonstrates firearms are used for self-defense at least 10x more iften than to commit murder.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> Really, the price other people are paying for the ease of access to firearms in the US is considered a bargain by those too selfish to make a sacrifice for the common good.


423,000,000 firearms the US
422,999,974 of them were not used to commit a murder today.
What "sacrifice" does this mandate, and how will said sacrifice increase that number?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> According to rabidly anti-gun Violence Prevention Center, at least 100,000 firearms are used each year in self-defense.
> Across the same time period, around 9500 firearms were used to commit murder
> ~100,000 / ~9500 = ~10
> 
> ...


Did you read what you sent. It contradicts your claim. Wow, what an idiot.
"Much discussion about the protective benefits of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative benefits often claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year. This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official".


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  The one that demonstrates firearms are used for self-defense at least 10x more iften than to commit murder.


No it doesn't. Idiot. Read it.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> 423,000,000 firearms the US
> 422,999,974 of them were not used to commit a murder today.
> What "sacrifice" does this mandate, and how will said sacrifice increase that number?


Were you dropped on your head as a child? Those numbers mean nothing.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And why not?  Did you read Biden's gun plans when he was running for President?  I did.
> 
> He wanted all gun owners to have to get a federal license to own the guns they've owned for years or even generations.  He wanted to force every gun owner to have a psychological exam at your cost of $800.00.  Some anti-gun shrink would interview you, your employer, your coworkers, your neighbors, your ex-wife, everybody.  Then he would make a determination as to whether you could own a gun or not based on their answers.
> 
> Mind you Dementia never carried through with his plans, but the Congress did try to pass his measures.  That's why you don't want the federal government to know about your guns.  If he got his way, you would be getting a notice that you must get this federal license for the guns you legally own, or else.........


You are afraid of everything. Fear drives people like you. Cowards with guns are dangerous. They think everything is out to get them. They lie to justify their paranoia.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> 422,999,974 of them were not used to commit a murder today.
> What "sacrifice" does this mandate, and how will said sacrifice increase that number?


See?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Perhaps almost all these accidents are prevention of a minor crime like common assault.



What difference does it make?  The armed citizen still stopped a crime.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> You are afraid of everything. Fear drives people like you. Cowards with guns are dangerous. They think everything is out to get them. They lie to justify their paranoia.



Then come to my neighborhood and take a walk some night, especially on the weekend.  

I don't take my gun every time I leave the house, but after dark when the action begins I usually do.  I ran out of my prescription yesterday and they just text me my RX is ready so I have to go and get it tonight.  I'll be carrying just in case.  

Since you're so fearless, do you not carry fire and theft insurance for your house?  How about your car?  Don't let that paranoia get to ya. 

BTW, licensed armed citizens are more law abiding than even our own police officers in this country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> Really, the price other people are paying for the ease of access to firearms in the US is considered a bargain by those too selfish to make a sacrifice for the common good. This will not change, the thread so far being an excellent illustration of how unAmerican such thinking would be.



Un-American is not wanting to abide by the US Constitution.  That's un-American.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Given the low number of justifiable homicides, I find it unbelievable that more then a few hundred lives per year are saved with guns.
> 
> Most of us have seen hundreds of action movies, thus our perception is biased.



Movies are not reality.  In reality very few incidents regarding a licensed armed citizen results in a shooting.

A man tries to steal a woman's purse in a store parking lot, an armed citizen comes to her aid and pulls out his weapon.  That kind of changes the entire picture.  In most cases, the criminal will run for his life.  It gets reported to the police and again, unless it's a slow news day, this could have happened a mile from your home and you'd never know it if the media doesn't report the story.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Perhaps almost all these accidents are prevention of a minor crime like common assault.


Yes.  And?

How is that any different?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Dec 6, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Yes.  And?
> 
> How is that any different?


Prevention of a minor assault is not such a big deal.

Loss of lives by guns is a disaster.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Un-American is not wanting to abide by the US Constitution. That's un-American.


See?


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

One only has to look at how other developed nations have reduced firearms crime and the firearm homicide rate to see how it can be done.
Too many Americans are happy with other people's school children paying the price of their easy access to firearms for the situation to change. The personal sacrifice required to save those school children - the reduction of ease of access to firearms - is too great.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Eight years of conservatives lying about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’
> 
> It never happened.
> 
> Another Democratic president and conservatives are lying again about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated’ – and again it won’t happen.



Obunghole had whatever gun control nuts he had, cut off by the Supreme Court before he took office.

In the run-up to the 2008 election the Dems were trying to top each other with their gun control plans.  While DC Mayor Fenty was cautioned against appealing _Parker_ to SCOTUS, he went ahead and filed.  While there was fear, nobody on the left ever thought SCOTUS would take the case and nobody wanted to believe the 2nd Amendment actually secured a right of the citizen . . .  They all were deluding themselves with 64 years of "collective right" bullshit . . .  And then SCOTUS took the case and then _Heller_ was handed down 5 months before the election and all the great leftist gun control dreams evaporated.

Leftist gun grabbers never understood what _Heller_ actually did but it served to paralyze their legislative efforts.  They still don't know with many still arguing the various collective right theories today LOL!

Yes, Obunghole didn't actually do much with guns, but it wasn't for not wanting to . . .  He and Congress were neutered and rendered impotent.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ insurrectionist dogma.
> 
> ...



Carl Bogus????

Jesus H. Christ, have a little self respect will ya . . .


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What difference does it make?  The armed citizen still stopped a crime.


Look for Ray from Cleveland to be shooting people who jay walk. This will reduce crime in America and reduce our population.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Obunghole had whatever gun control nuts he had, cut off by the Supreme Court before he took office.
> 
> In the run-up to the 2008 election the Dems were trying to top each other with their gun control plans.  While DC Mayor Fenty was cautioned against appealing _Parker_ to SCOTUS, he went ahead and filed.  While there was fear, nobody on the left ever thought SCOTUS would take the case and nobody wanted to believe the 2nd Amendment actually secured a right of the citizen . . .  They all were deluding themselves with 64 years of "collective right" bullshit . . .  And then SCOTUS took the case and then _Heller_ was handed down 5 months before the election and all the great leftist gun control dreams evaporated.
> 
> ...


Abatis is, obviously, a very freighted individual who finds security and self-esteem in owning a gun. A sad but very dangerous bunch. A gun makes them feel like they are somebody. 
The majority of gun owners are not driven to own a gun by their cowardice but those who do, stick out with their whacky rhetoric.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Look for Ray from Cleveland to be shooting people who jay walk.


It takes a good man with a gun to stop a bad man jay walking...


----------



## whitehall (Dec 6, 2021)

If lefties were serious about gun related violence they would call for the indictment of Barry Hussein and his A.G. Eric Holder for gun running thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels and the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Officer. they would also call for the indictment of Alec Baldwin for negligent homicide. Since the won't and don't, the argument must be about political power.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Look for Ray from Cleveland to be shooting people who jay walk. This will reduce crime in America and reduce our population.



The only people who are reducing population in this country are the Communists by lowering penalties for criminals and allowing people who illegally carry or use a firearm for criminal activity out of jail where they belonged. 

CCW carriers are statistically the most law abiding citizens in our country.  So don't worry about us, worry more about those who have a gun when they're not supposed to have one.  That's who's going to get you, especially if you are not prepared to defend yourself.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> One only has to look at how other developed nations have reduced firearms crime and the firearm homicide rate to see how it can be done.
> Too many Americans are happy with other people's school children paying the price of their easy access to firearms for the situation to change. The personal sacrifice required to save those school children - the reduction of ease of access to firearms - is too great.



Assuming you believe in the stupidest theory of all that if you disarm law abiding citizens, you will somehow disarm criminals.  If you actually lived here you'd understand you can never disarm the criminal.  What you'd end up with is a disarmed law abiding society and an armed criminal element.  How do you suppose that would work out for us?   If you know a way to disarm criminals, let's hear about it.  Because maybe we could use your theory to stop narcotics that have been illegal in this country all of my life, and yet the problem is the worst it's ever been. 

Other countries?  Well other countries are not nearly as diverse as the United States.  Over half our murders are committed by only 7% of our population, and that is black males.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> worry more about those who have a gun when they're not supposed to have one.


And they can have one because the country is awash with the firearms demanded by 'the most law abiding citizens'.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Other countries? Well other countries are not nearly as diverse as the United States. Over half our murders are committed by only 7% of our population, and that is black males.


See? No sacrifice for other people is too small for an American to refuse to make it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> See? No sacrifice for other people is too small for an American to refuse to make it.



What could we sacrifice that would make any difference?  Your proposal would increase violent crime by over 50%.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> How do you suppose that would work out for us?


The same way it's worked out for the other developed nations, with lower firearm crime and homicide rates.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> And they can have one because the country is awash with the firearms demanded by 'the most law abiding citizens'.



Bullshit.  As I explained repeatedly, if you took all our guns away, the criminals will always have theirs.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What could we sacrifice that would make any difference?


The ease of access to firearms. Can you not read?


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Bullshit. As I explained repeatedly, if you took all our guns away, the criminals will always have theirs.


Just like in all the other developed nations which control firearms more rigidly, no doubt.

And only you in this discussion is talking about 'all' firearms, you perpetual victim.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> The same way it's worked out for the other developed nations, with lower firearm crime and homicide rates.



Another stupid theory:  If a person wants to kill another person, they will abort their mission because they don't have a gun.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> Just like in all the other developed nations which control firearms more rigidly, no doubt.



Then why do we have a huge illegal narcotics problem in our country?  Because the bad guys will always find a way to get drugs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> The ease of access to firearms. Can you not read?



Criminals do not have access to legal firearms.  Can't you read?  Very few crimes are committed with a legally purchased firearm.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Criminals do not have access to legal firearms.  Can't you read?  Very few crimes are committed with a legally purchased firearm.


Why do you keep shifting goalposts? 

How come you can't understand that having a country awash with firearms means they will be more easily obtained either illegally or legally?

Oh. Right. You're a rightard gun nut. My bad.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Another stupid theory: If a person wants to kill another person, they will abort their mission because they don't have a gun.


Yet other developed nations with more rigid firearm controls have neither the firearm crime nor firearm homicide rate of the US.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> Why do you keep shifting goalposts?
> 
> How come you can't understand that having a country awash with firearms means they will be more easily obtained either illegally or legally?
> 
> Oh. Right. You're a rightard gun nut. My bad.



Because you can never stop the sale of illegal guns, that's why.  If they don't get them from stealing them out of homes, they will make them.  Ever hear of a 3-D printer?  They make ghost guns.  In other words guns that cannot be traced back to anybody.  Guns are not that complicated of a tool.  It's metal (and plastic in some cases) that can be manufactured by people with low cost machinery and you can make guns in your basement. 

You just can't seem to get that out of your head.  You actually believe by disarming society the bad guys will give up their guns and never buy more.  Wrong.  All it will do is stop good people from owning them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> Yet other developed nations with more rigid firearm controls have neither the firearm crime nor firearm homicide rate of the US.



And as I explained, because they are not a multi-culture society.  And as I have explained, over half of all US murders are committed by black males.  Take the people of color out of the mix and we will line up more closely to those in other all white or single culture countries.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Abatis is, obviously, a very freighted individual who finds security and self-esteem in owning a gun. A sad but very dangerous bunch. A gun makes them feel like they are somebody.
> The majority of gun owners are not driven to own a gun by their cowardice but those who do, stick out with their whacky rhetoric.



That post is just the typical ad-hom pathetic projection we see from hoplophobes and statist authoritarians who would never trust themselves with a gun so they feel nobody else should have one.  You can't actually make a reasoned argument so we must suffer your juvenile outbursts.

Your post, rather than insulting me, screams of your own insecurities and feelings of deep frustration, craving power but being completely impotent and only worthy of pity.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> That post is just the typical ad-hom pathetic projection we see from hoplophobes and statist authoritarians who would never trust themselves with a gun so they feel nobody else should have one.  You can't actually make a reasoned argument so we must suffer your juvenile outbursts.
> 
> Your post, rather than insulting me, screams of your own insecurities and feelings of deep frustration, craving power but being completely impotent and only worthy of pity.



It's always the people who never been to the US yet alone lived here that thinks they have the solution to all of our problems because they read shit.  It's different reading shit and living it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Did you read what you sent. It contradicts your claim.


You aren't paying attention, as that does not contradict anything I said.
You just don't like the fact guns are used for self-defense an order of magnitude more often that to commit murder.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> No it doesn't. Idiot. Read it.


Says he who has not read the source I provided.
Hint:  See page 6.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Were you dropped on your head as a child? Those numbers mean nothing.


Other than the fact they demonstrate your nonsense is...  nonsense... then sure.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> See?


You avoided my question:
_What "sacrifice" does this mandate, and how will said sacrifice increase that number?       _ 
And you'll avoid it again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> One only has to look at how other developed nations have reduced firearms crime and the firearm homicide rate to see how it can be done.


Really.
How did the UK reduce firearms-related crimes?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check.


Simple:
The state cannot show probable cause - or reasonable suspicion - to justify the restraint imposed by same.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why not register all guns.


Because it is impossible to soundly demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, doing so.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> One only has to look at how other developed nations have reduced firearms crime and the firearm homicide rate to see how it can be done.



The nations typically pointed to for their long-standing gun control did not enact those gun controls to reduce crime.  They were enacted originally for political purposes to keep certain segment of the population disarmed and unable to resist government.

Britain is a perfect example, even Blackstone recognized the true purpose of Britain's game laws was to keep commoners disarmed (no person without land bearing income, could possess an engine to take game).

That a compliant and subjugated people who have been forbidden to own guns for centuries don't shoot each other, isn't really all that noteworthy.  Neither is *that* a condition in the people that can be reverse engineered in the USA.

See, the last time we cared what another nation thought about our guns, we shot them in the face at a bridge in Massachusetts.

.


----------



## Flash (Dec 6, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA




The stupid Libtards are not to be trusted with "common sense" because they don't have any.

The stupid "common sense" gun regulations were passed in New York.

A week after it was passed a decorated veteran was arrested because he had a 30 rd AR magazine in his vehicle.  No AR, no bullets but he was arrested.  There are millions of AR magazines in the US but yet he was arrested.

A little time later another veteran went to see his doctor about a little insomnia.  Under the filthy ass Libtard New York "common sense" laws the doctor had to tun him into the authorities.  A day later the jackbooted thugs came to his home and confiscated his firearms because he was a mental health risk.

There are many more examples.

Liberals don't have common sense and we can't trust them with our Constitutional Liberties.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 6, 2021)

cnm said:


> It takes a good man with a gun to stop a bad man jay walking...


how true.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Prevention of a minor assault is not such a big deal.
> 
> Loss of lives by guns is a disaster.


I am still not seeing why you think that helps your argument.

If I have a gun and it stops an assault just by having it, that is defensive use.  That is WAY better than any other situation, no?  Nobody gets hurt, but the attacker is deturred simply by seeing the firearm.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And as I explained, because they are not a multi-culture society.  And as I have explained, over half of all US murders are committed by black males.  Take the people of color out of the mix and we will line up more closely to those in other all white or single culture countries.


You are such an ignorant, bigoted hick. NZ has around the same 'white' percentage of population the US has.

Your racism is just a handy excuse for your selfishness.


----------



## cnm (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The nations typically pointed to for their long-standing gun control did not enact those gun controls to reduce crime.


Be that as it may, the fact is that firearm crime and firearm homicide rates are fractions of the US rate in those countries with more rigid firearm control. It works to reduce events.

But I fully accept other people's school kids are a bargain to those wishing to maintain easy access to firearms.

Apart from that, retaining an easy access to firearms has not helped the US people resist government oppression.
For instance, many people on this message board believe an election was stolen. A greater example of government oppression and tyranny can not be found in US history, yet what happened to the arms bearing patriots on this board and in the general US population when this outrage occurred? This happened.




So much for firearms as an instrument to resist government tyranny. Rather, they appear more to be used to look tough, talk big and shoot each other by accident and design.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> You are such an ignorant, bigoted hick. NZ has around the same 'white' percentage of population the US has.
> 
> Your racism is just a handy excuse for your selfishness.



That's some particularly amusing virtue-signalling prattle coming from a resident of a nation that has its own ethnic minority condemned as being irredeemably criminally inclined because of its vast over-representation as perpetrators of crime.

That so much of NZ's crime is caused by Māori and various biker gang syndicates of Māori and White backgrounds, would make me think you could identify with America's plight.  Criminals aren't "normal" citizens and the well-intended legislation directed towards and dutifully obeyed by "normal" law-abiding citizens has no effect on criminals.

As you have seen, gang leaders have been quoted in your press openly refusing to comply with your bitch's gun confiscation and they seem utterly immune to and genuinely unencumbered by police actions.

That undeniable fact that gun control rarely impacts the criminal, is realized by the gun rights people in both NZ and the USA.  For them it serves as the evidence that criminals don't obey gun laws which proves gun control in general is a useless misapplication of effort.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> Be that as it may, the fact is that firearm crime and firearm homicide rates are fractions of the US rate in those countries with more rigid firearm control. It works to reduce events.



And people who live in a desert rarely drown.



cnm said:


> But I fully accept other people's school kids are a bargain to those wishing to maintain easy access to firearms.



Yes, it is all about choices and weighing societal values against governing principles.  You look at the issue the way a statist authoritarian would look a it. I look at it from the perspective that it is the primary duty of government to preserve liberty and a citizen's duty is to refuse to sacrifice liberty for empty promises of safety from government.

Government possesses a myriad of powers to vastly reduce, even eliminate the criminal use of firearms in US society but those currently in power are making choices seemingly intended to upend society, allowing crime to flourish.

The rampant level of crime is then held up as evidence that government must be given _more_ power over the citizens -- of course more "gun control", focused on the peaceable, law-abiding citizen -- in the hopes that restrictions on their guns will trickle-down to the criminal and lessen their impact on society. Personally, I think that idea, besides being insane, is philosophically and legally bankrupt and must be resisted at every opportunity.



cnm said:


> Apart from that, retaining an easy access to firearms has not helped the US people resist government oppression. . . .  So much for firearms as an instrument to resist government tyranny.



Are you suggesting the best way to resist government oppression, even repel tyranny is for the population to be disarmed, harmless and helpless?

My signature isn't just a snappy saying I like; it is as true a statement about force vs. surrender I could ever imagine.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> Be that as it may, the fact is that firearm crime and firearm homicide rates are fractions of the US rate in those countries with more rigid firearm control. It works to reduce events.


You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the low rate of firearms-related crime and the gun control laws in those countries.
That is, you cannot demonstrate "they work".


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And people who live in a desert rarely drown.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Abatis is one large bag of wind full of bullshit. He uses big words to attempt to articulate nonsense. The thinking of one who is paranoid. A person who is fearful of fellow citizens, but his guns make him feel invincible. A person who is fearful of the government, but his guns make him feel invincible. I hate to break it to you, Abatis, but all the guns in the world will not change the fact you are a paranoid, coward seeing danger where there is no danger. I am glad I do not live in you world.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> That undeniable fact that gun control rarely impacts the criminal, is realized by the gun rights people in both NZ and the USA.


Notwithstanding our own ammosexuals' self delusions, because firearms are more rigidly controlled in NZ, thereby reducing firearms in circulation available to be obtained by criminals, the rates of firearm crime and firearm homicide in NZ are fractions of that of the US.

As they are similarly in other developed nations possessing both criminals and more rigid firearms controls.

Thanks for emphasising that obvious point.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Are you suggesting the best way to resist government oppression, even repel tyranny is for the population to be disarmed, harmless and helpless?


I'm suggesting that to resist government tyranny is a principal reason for easy access to firearms has been shown to be bullshit.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Yes, it is all about choices and weighing societal values against governing principles.


Absolutely. You accept that other people's school kids are an acceptable price to pay for your easy access to firearms. Your societal values follow those of most Americans, from what I see, where individual freedoms overrule societal benefit. This isn't rocket science.

The personal sacrifice of reducing ease of access to firearms is too great when weighed against other people's school kids.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the low rate of firearms-related crime and the gun control laws in those countries.
> That is, you cannot demonstrate "they work".


Sure. All the plain evidence is fake news. No worries.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 7, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Bullshit.  As I explained repeatedly, if you took all our guns away, the criminals will always have theirs.


No one is taking your guns away, no one is removing guns from society. Where did you get that dumbass idea from? The citizens in more than 175 countries have guns, it's just that, they like to see better regulation and control to lower gun deaths. Firearm regulation does not remove guns and it does not stop gun violence or deaths, it reduces. Did that get into your skull or did fly through one ear and out the other because there was nothing to stop it?

Vehicle regulation reduces accidents, injuries and deaths, it does not stop accidents, injuries and deaths. Do you fucking get it?


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Firearm regulation does not remove guns and it does not stop gun violence or deaths, it reduces.


Useful firearm regulation will remove/reduce guns. Specifically, the number of handguns and military style semi automatics in private hands.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 7, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Abatis is one large bag of wind full of bullshit. . . . I am glad I do not live in you world.



All you can do is attack me with personal insults.  You can not challenge me on the Constitution or the law, you have no competency in that, you can only emote and cry . . .  
All you have is your sad, leftist hate and perverse need to subjugate and control other people.   Funniest thing is, you are not against guns or killing people at all; your happiness depends on making sure it is the "right" people kneeling at the trench


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 7, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> No one is taking your guns away, no one is removing guns from society. Where did you get that dumbass idea from? The citizens in more than 175 countries have guns, it's just that, they like to see better regulation and control to lower gun deaths. Firearm regulation does not remove guns and it does not stop gun violence or deaths, it reduces. Did that get into your skull or did fly through one ear and out the other because there was nothing to stop it?
> 
> Vehicle regulation reduces accidents, injuries and deaths, it does not stop accidents, injuries and deaths. Do you fucking get it?



They like to pretend that the gooberment is going take yer guns away.

They like feeling outraged by this fantasy.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> Notwithstanding our own ammosexuals' self delusions, because firearms are more rigidly controlled in NZ, thereby reducing firearms in circulation available to be obtained by criminals, the rates of firearm crime and firearm homicide in NZ are fractions of that of the US.
> As they are similarly in other developed nations possessing both criminals and more rigid firearms controls.


You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationships you claim, above.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> They like to pretend that the gooberment is going take yer guns away.


Democrats routinely run on the promise of more and more and more gun control.
Should we not take them seriously?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> Sure. All the plain evidence is fake news. No worries.


Look at you, unable to understand correlation does not prove causation.
Demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> They like to pretend that the gooberment is going take yer guns away.


For any sort of dent in firearm crime or firearm homicide rates the number of firearms in circulation/private hands- specifically handguns and military style semi automatics- will have to be reduced. A buyback scheme seems to be the best road to achieve that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> Useful firearm regulation will remove/reduce guns. Specifically, the number of handguns and military style semi automatics in private hands.


You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or the efficacy of, what you propose.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Look at you, unable to understand correlation does not prove causation.
> Demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


Sure. All the studies are fake news. No worries. Denial is a necessary part of ammosexuality.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or the efficacy of, what you propose.


Except for all the examples of other developed nations. But I understand those are fake news.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> Sure. All the studies are fake news. No worries. Denial is a necessary part of ammosexuality.


Thank you for the admission that you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> Except for all the examples of other developed nations. But I understand those are fake news.


Thank you for the admission that you cannot demonstrate the necessity or efficacy you claim.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Thank you for the admission that you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


That's ok, I enjoyed your reprise of the tobacco lobbyists' shtick, where completely obvious connections were disingenuously dismissed. 
'_But you can't prove it._'
Funny how their arguments made no difference to lung cancer rates but reduced smoking rates did.
You didn't happen to work for big tobacco, did you?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> That's ok, I enjoyed your reprise of the tobacco lobbyists' shtick.


You made a claim, onus is in you to back it up.
And you know you cannot.
Disagree?
Demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You made a claim, onus is in you to back it up.
> And you know you cannot.
> Disagree?
> Demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


The other developed nations demonstrate the relationship I claim. If you want to dismiss that as irrelevant I for one will not be at all surprised.

I have to go to where the flavour is. I need a Marlboro.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> The other developed nations demonstrate the relationship I claim.


  
No.   You claim their gun laws reduce their gun-related crime rates.
That's the necessary relationship I challenged you to demonstrate, and you know you cannot.
Disagree?
Demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> No.   You claim their gun laws reduce their gun-related crime rates.
> That's the necessary relationship I challenged you to demonstrate, and you know you cannot.
> Disagree?
> Demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2021)

cnm said:


>


Thank you for the admission that you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.


----------



## cnm (Dec 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You claim their gun laws reduce their gun-related crime rates.


I believe I claimed reduced numbers of handguns and military style semi autos in circulation/private hands reduced firearm crime and firearm homicide rates.
The experience of other developed nations illustrates that. I quite understand your position prevents you acknowledging that. No worries...





Just like tobacco lobbyists could not afford to see any link between smoking and lung cancer rates. 
Oh well.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> All you can do is attack me with personal insults.  You can not challenge me on the Constitution or the law, you have no competency in that, you can only emote and cry . . .
> All you have is your sad, leftist hate and perverse need to subjugate and control other people.   Funniest thing is, you are not against guns or killing people at all; your happiness depends on making sure it is the "right" people kneeling at the trench
> 
> View attachment 573007



Abatis is one large bag of wind full of bullshit. He uses big words to attempt to articulate nonsense. The thinking of one who is paranoid. A person who is fearful of fellow citizens, but his guns make him feel invincible. A person who is fearful of the government, but his guns make him feel invincible. I hate to break it to you, Abatis, but all the guns in the world will not change the fact you are a paranoid, coward seeing danger where there is no danger. I am glad I do not live in you world.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> I believe I claimed reduced numbers of handguns and military style semi autos in circulation/private hands reduced firearm crime and firearm homicide rates.
> The experience of other developed nations illustrates that. I quite understand your position prevents you acknowledging that. No worries...
> 
> 
> ...



The other developed nations allowed 12 million innocent mwn, women and children  to be myrdered by the German socialists in just 6 years...

Our gun murder rate hasnt reached that number in 87 years ..... you like the efficiency of state conducted murder....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> I believe I claimed reduced numbers of handguns and military style semi autos in circulation/private hands reduced firearm crime and firearm homicide rates.
> The experience of other developed nations illustrates that. I quite understand your position prevents you acknowledging that. No worries...
> 
> 
> ...




And you are wrong......the gun murder rates is all of the countries you point to were always low, even when they allowed people to own handguns.......so if the number was low before they banned and confiscated guns, then remained low after they banned and confiscated guns, there is no connection between gun ownership and crime......there is no connection between banning guns and reducing gun crime since there was no change...

In the U.S.......we have had an experiment for 27 years.....from the 1990s to 2015.....we had millions and millions of Americans not only buying guns, but carrying them in public for self defense....

Now....according to you, that would mean gun crime and gun murder would go up.....as the mere presence of guns = more gun crime...

For 27 years what happened to our gun crime, gun murder and violent crime rates....as more Americans purchased and carried guns?

Gun murder went down 49%.........how do you explain that?

Gun crime went down 75%......75%....how do you explain that?

Violent crime went down 72%.....how do you explain that?

*And before you say I can't prove those things went down because of gun ownership.......I am not making that point here......I am showing that your theory, that simply more guns in a society creates more crime........is wrong.  Completely wrong.*

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

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


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

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

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

So.....your examples of other nations that had little gun murder with guns....then little gun murder after banning them...doesn't hold up......while the exact opposite happened in the U.S.....

What changed in the U.S. in 2015, when crime began to spike?   We had millions of guns and gun murder went down 49%, gun crime went down 75%...........showing that normal people owning guns does not increase gun crime....

In 2015...the democrat party decided, as policy, to attack the police......an unrelenting attack, that forced normal police officers to stop doing their jobs....they stopped pro-active police work, the kind of work that stopped criminals who carried guns......they stopped doing their jobs in order to keep their jobs, protect their pensions and to keep from going to jail......

The second thing the democrat party did?  They started releasing actual gun criminals from jail and prison......over and over again......known, violent, repeat gun offenders, released on bail, often no-cash bail, and released from prison on reduced sentences...

You have been shown the criminals released due to democrat party prosecutors, judges and politicians.....and refuse to admit they are the reason we have gun crime here in the cities they control.....

You refuse to admit it because you want to ban guns......and if you admitted that releasing the criminals who commit gun crime is the cause of gun crime, that would destroy your argument for gun control...

We have prosecutors who will not charge criminals caught not only with illegal guns...but actually shooting those guns...

Kim Foxx inChicago refused to charge a guy who shot a little girl......the Police detectives even tried to go around her to get charges pressed by a judge, and then she called on the democrat partty police superintendant to stop those detectives...

Kim Foxx also refused to charge 5 gang members, caught on video shooting at each other on a public street.....they captured two of them, with bullets in them and on the ground..........on video, in a gun fight...and she refused to charge them

We don't have gun crime because normal people own guns...as your examples and mine show....we have gun crime because of the left wing, democrat party policies that release known, repeat, violent gun offenders......*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> I believe I claimed reduced numbers of handguns and military style semi autos in circulation/private hands reduced firearm crime and firearm homicide rates.
> The experience of other developed nations illustrates that. I quite understand your position prevents you acknowledging that. No worries...
> 
> 
> ...




The other nations?  Especially in Europe.....? 

Can't stop criminals from getting illegal guns...not even Sweden can stop it...and the preferred weapon of the criminals in Europe are fully automatic military rifles and grenades.....

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK

Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

*Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.*

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.

*Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”*

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

*Handguns are the next biggest category,* most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.

*llegal weapons in the city have been increasing over the last few years, figures show.

Girl, 16, arrested after three loaded guns and 200 bullets seized in raid


Diana Fawcett, the charity's chief executive, told Sky News: "At a time when the number of homicides has been falling, deaths related to gun crime are showing significant increases which is incredibly concerning.More than 600 children in the UK were arrested for suspected firearm offences last year amid the coronavirus pandemic, new figures reveal.
A Sky News investigation has found children as young as 11 were among more than 2,000 youths detained for alleged crimes involving guns, imitation firearms and air weapons between 2018 and January 2021.
-----
Simeon Moore, who carried a gun aged 15 when he was a member of a notorious Birmingham gang, said young people arming themselves often believe they are doing "the right thing".
---
"From knives, we started to carry guns. For me, at the time it was a means of protection.
"I was walking around and at any point I could get beat up, stabbed or have my head blown off.
Hundreds of children arrested for suspected gun crimes during COVID pandemic*
==============

ttps://news.sky.com/story/revealed-hundreds-of-children-arrested-for-suspected-gun-crimes-during-covid-pandemic-including-some-just-12-12238859
==============

The number of shootings in London is on the rise, despite the capital being in lockdown for significant parts of last year.

Scotland Yard figures reveal 288 incidents in 2020 where a lethal firearm was discharged, compared with 266 shooting incidents the year before.
-----
The second call of the day brought into sharp focus the concerns police have around the number of criminals apparently now willing to carry firearms.
----
The officer said criminal gangs were increasingly targeting vehicles for the small amounts of precious metals in the catalytic converters.

"It is only worth a few hundred pounds to them, but for that, the criminal gangs are willing to threaten lethal force."

Shootings in London on the rise despite lockdown, police reveal

Sharp rise in knife and gun attacks outside London as austerity bites

Across the West Midlands, violent crime has become unnervingly common. Despite knife crime in the capital making the headlines, it has risen by 103% since 2014 in this region compared with 48% in London, with 14 knife crimes a day so far this year often targeting children of school age. Meanwhile,* gun crime is up by a third in the West Midlands,* 

*and murder, GBH and other violent crimes increased by 17% in the last year alone. In London, the rises were about 10% and 6% year-on-year, respectively.*
The gangs and violence commission report found “crucial links” between the black market for illicit substances and serious violence, and much of the rising violence is blamed locally on disputes between gangs, many of whom deal drugs, increasingly being settled with guns and knives.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> I believe I claimed reduced numbers of handguns and military style semi autos in circulation/private hands reduced firearm crime and firearm homicide rates.
> The experience of other developed nations illustrates that. I quite understand your position prevents you acknowledging that. No worries...
> 
> 
> ...




Sweden....Sweden?  Military rifles and grenades........aren't those banned in Europe and Sweden? 

How do you explain this?

A suspected bomb blast which tore through an apartment block, injuring 20 people in the Swedish city of Gothenburg in the early hours of Tuesday has reignited the country's debate over rampant gang violence.

Police say that an explosive device was 'probably' placed at the scene, with sources revealing that an officer who recently testified at a major gang trial lived in the building.

Prime Minister Stefan Lofven refused to 'speculate' but it's hard to blame Swedes for rushing to conclusions: more than 200 explosions and 360 shootings reverberated through their cities in 2020.
------

Police chiefs blame the violence on 'criminal clans that have a completely different culture' and a 'generous welfare system and trusting society can be exploited by the criminal networks.'

The country last year suffered its highest level of murder and manslaughter for at least 18 years, with 124 people killed in violent attacks. Eighty per cent were linked to gangs and 39 per cent involved guns.
----

Gun crime is also rampant, which BRA attributes to increased gangs, drug trafficking, and low confidence in the police.
---
In 2020, Sweden recorded more than 360 gun-involved incident, with 47 deaths and 117 people wounded.
After a long period of decline, gun violence steadily increased from the mid-2000s and continues to do so.
Shooting deaths more than doubled between 2011 and 2019 and now account for 40 per cent of violent deaths.
'The increase in gun homicide in Sweden is closely linked to criminal milieux in socially disadvantaged areas,' the report said.
Eighty per cent of shootings were linked to gangs, a significantly higher proportion than in other European countries. 

As 'bomb blast' injures 20, how Sweden is being plagued by explosions​=======​Sweden has gone from having one of the lowest rates of gun violence in Europe to having one of the highest, a report said on Wednesday, describing what one researcher called a "social contagion" of killings.​-----
The report said eight out of 10 shootings took place in a "criminal environment", with gang conflicts mentioned as one of the potential reasons for the trend. The drugs trade and low confidence towards the police in some parts of society were also cited as potential factors.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/social-contagion-sweden-sees-surge-deadly-shootings-2021-05-26/​​
The increase in gun homicide in Sweden is closely linked to criminal milieux in socially disadvantaged areas,” the report said, noting that shooting deaths had more than doubled between 2011 and 2019 and now accounted for 40% of violent deaths.
The report said more than eight out of 10 shootings were linked to organised crime, a significantly higher proportion than in other countries, and cited gang wars, the drugs trade and low confidence towards the police as potential factors.
The report said a decline in other forms of deadly violence, including knife crime, had masked the rise in fatal shootings.
Of 22 European countries analysed in the report, data from 2014-2017 put the country in second place, behind Croatia and ahead of Latvia. In 2018 it topped the ranking, although data from some countries was not complete that year.
-------
Last year the country of 10.3 million people recorded more than 360 incidents involving guns, including 47 deaths and 117 people injured.
Sweden is the only European country where fatal shootings have risen significantly since 2000, leaping from one of the lowest rates of gun violence on the continent to one of the highest in less than a decade, a report has found.
The report, by the Swedish national council for crime prevention (BRA), said the Scandinavian country had overtaken Italy and eastern European countries primarily because of the violent activities of organised criminal gangs.
Sweden’s gun violence rate has soared due to gangs, report says

=======
Swedish capital sees 79% spike in shootings as govt laments ‘high levels’ of violence in the Scandinavian country
Sweden recorded a surge in gun-related violence last year, according to new figures released by the government amid accusations that authorities have turned a blind eye to rising crime in the country.
Interior Minister Mikael Damberg disclosed on Monday that 47 people were killed and 117 injured in 366 shooting incidents in 2020, marking a 10 percent increase in gun violence when compared to statistics from 2019.

Damberg noted that in nearly half of the shootings registered last year, someone was injured or killed. _“We will neither accept nor get used to such high levels of violence,”_ he said.


The situation in Malmo, a city with a large migrant population that has struggled with gang violence, has improved, while crime is surging in Stockholm, the interior minister pointed out.

According to Damberg, the Swedish capital saw a staggering 79 percent increase in shootings in 2020.
-----
Most of the violent incidents occurred in 60 suburbs across the country identified by police as _“vulnerable”_ areas. Damberg said that while 5.4 percent of Sweden’s population live in such neighborhoods, they account for more than half of the nation’s fatal shootings.


===========
In the report on Tuesday, the Swedish Television, citing statistics from the Swedish Police Authority, revealed that by November, there had been as many shootings in 2020 as during the whole of 2019.
Between January 1 and December 15, there were 349 confirmed shootings in Sweden, with 111 people wounded and 44 dead as a result, Xinhua news agency quoted the report as saying.
The death toll is close to the highest number on record so far -- 45 gun-related fatalities in 2018.
Most of the shootings, or 146, occurred in the capital Stockholm, where 23 deaths and 48 injuries were reported.
According to the police, most incidents were related to organised crime and conflicts between gang members.
Criminologist Joakim Sturup told Swedish Television that a major reason behind the worrying statistics is that automatic weapons are becoming more commonly used by gang members.

Sweden witnesses spike in shooting incidents​​Shootings on the Rise in Sweden Despite Crackdown on Gang Violence, COVID-19 Epidemic​The number of shootings is increasing in Sweden, despite a national effort to curtail gang violence amid the ongoing coronavirus epidemic, SVT reported.​-------
The police also noted that the raging coronavirus epidemic, contrary to some people's expectations, has not had a major impact on crime. This is likely due to the fact that Sweden, unlike most European nations, has consistently avoided lockdowns. Even the flow of drugs has not been disturbed to any great extent, the police said. However, there is still a risk that reduced access to drugs may increase violence.
Crime gangs in Sweden: What's behind the rise in the use of explosives?

The frequent use of explosives is a relatively recent phenomenon, and criminologists told The Local that the blasts can be seen as part of an overall rise in violence and growing recklessness in these criminal networks.

Amir Rostami, a police superintendent turned sociologist with a focus on criminal gangs, told The Local that so-called 'street gangs' are showing an increased tendency towards violence, and that this violence was becoming more severe when it took place.

*"If previously they maybe fired one shot or shot someone in the legs, today it's more about AK47s, using more bullets, hand grenades and explosions that we didn't see before.* I'd say that's the biggest shift we see – they're more reckless, they don't seem to care about the consequences," Rostami said.

Fatal shootings linked to criminal gangs have increased from around four per year in the early 1990s to over 40 in 2018. And while the blasts that have taken place in Sweden have caused no fatalities so far this year, they could be seen as a sign that the gangs are unafraid of causing damage and potentially harming people.
No, Sweden, hand grenade attacks aren’t an ‘image’ problem

In 2018 there were 162 bombings reported to police, and 93 reported in the first five months of this year, 30 more than during the same period in 2018. The level of attacks is _“extreme in a country that is not at war,”_ Crime Commissioner Gunnar Appelgren told SVT last year.
-------
*The use of hand grenades is a purely Swedish phenomenon too, with no other country in Europe reporting their use on such a level, a police manager told Swedish Radio in 2016, a year after attacks first spiked.*

The grenades used almost exclusively originate in the former Yugoslavia, and are sold in Sweden for around $100 per piece. But while only three hand grenades were thrown in Kosovo between 2013 and 2014, more than 20 have been used in Sweden every year since 2015.

*More broadly, homicide has risen in Sweden, with more than 300 shootings reported last year, causing 45 deaths.* Though homicide rates had been in decline since 2002, they again began trending upwards in 2015, as did rapes and sexual assaults, which more than tripled in the last four years.

*Of course, 2015 was also the year in which Sweden flung open its doors to more than 160,000 asylum seekers, more per capita than any other European country.
-------

Dagens Nyheter pointed out that 90 percent of shooting perpetrators in Sweden are either first or second generation immigrants.*​Bomb attacks are now a normal part of Swedish life | The Spectator​
Only days after the murder of Karolin Hakim, another young woman fell victim to the gang wars. Eighteen-year-old Ndella Jack was killed as someone fired an automatic weapon into her flat in western Stockholm, probably aiming for her husband, a well-known figure in Stockholm’s gang scene. Less than a week after the murder, associates of Ms Jack’s husband were lured to a middle-class suburb of Stockholm, where they had been promised information about her killer. Shots were fired, missing the targets and hitting instead a taxi driver and a resident in a nearby building. One victim, also a university student, lost his sight in an eye after it was hit by a bullet


Holding Sweden hostage: firearm-related violence

Statistics from the NBHW shows that the number of individuals in Sweden injured by a firearm has greatly increased since 2009. Between 2012 and 2017, the number of individuals that were injured by a firearm increased by 50% [13]. Figure 3 outlines the number of individuals being treated at Swedish hospitals for firearm-related injuries.
----------
International reports [1, 2], the Swedish police [12,19], and Swedish scholars [3–6,20,21] *agree that the main cause for the increase in the rate of firearm-related violence is the presence of many gangs and criminal networks in Sweden.*

Although gangs and criminal networks have always existed in Sweden, street gangs flourished in the late 1990s and are today considered to be one of the main security problems in the country [22–24]. Swedish gangs and foremost criminal networks have not only continued to increase, but*they have also become bolder and more violent as can be seen in their use of firearms and explosive devices as their modus operandi [3,6].*

Another very important source of the increase of firearm-related violence in Sweden is the easy access to illegal firearms. Although Sweden was, for decades, shielded from firearm-related violence, mostly because of its restrictive gun laws, the easy access to illegal firearms, in addition to the many gangs and criminal networks in the country, is the main reason for the disturbing increase in the country’s rate of firearm-related violence. According to police reports, there has been a high inflow of illegal weapons into Sweden from the western Balkans [12].
==========

IN DEPTH: What’s behind the rise in gang violence across Sweden?

Honour, debts, and prestige are serving as the pretext for an increasing number of deadly shootings that challenge the ideals of equality and social harmony on which modern Sweden was built.
Stats in Sweden show rise in violence after refugee surge

Murder rose 11 percent in 2016 when compared to 2015's numbers.

Men specifically are killed by gunfire at an increased rate too - up 28 percent in that same time period.

Leading up to 2016, more than a quarter million refugees applied for asylum in Sweden, most fleeing war zones in Muslim-majority countries.​​Abstract​Recent reports state that firearm-related violence is increasing in Sweden. In order to understand the trend of firearm-related violence in Sweden with regard to rate, modus operandi (MO) and homicide typology, and for which injuries and causes of death firearm-related violence is responsible, a systematic literature review was conducted. After a thorough search in different databases, a total of 25 studies published in Swedish and English peer-review journals were identified and thus analyzed. The results show that even though knives/sharp weapons continue to be the most common MO in a violent crime in Sweden, firearm-related violence is significantly increasing in the country and foremost when discussing gang-related crimes. Moreover, firearm-related homicides and attempted homicides are increasing in the country. The studies also show that a firearm is much more lethal than a knife/sharp weapon, and that the head, thorax and the abdomen are the most lethal and serious anatomical locations in which to be hit. It is principally the three largest cities of Sweden which are affected by the many shootings in recent years. The police have severe difficulties in solving firearm-related crimes such as homicide and attempted homicide, which is why the confidence and trust for the Swedish judicial system may be decreasing among the citizens. Several reforms have taken place in Sweden in the last few years, but their effect on firearm-related violence remains to be studied.
========
4/19/18

Sweden’s violent reality is undoing a peaceful self-image

Gang-related gun murders, now mainly a phenomenon among men with immigrant backgrounds in the country’s parallel societies, increased from 4 per year in the early 1990s to around 40 last year. Because of this, Sweden has gone from being a low-crime country to having homicide rates significantly above the Western European average. Social unrest, with car torchings, attacks on first responders and even riots, is a recurring phenomenon.

*Shootings in the country have become so common that they don’t make top headlines anymore, unless they are spectacular or lead to fatalities.*

 News of attacks are quickly replaced with headlines about sports events and celebrities, as readers have become desensitized to the violence.


* A generation ago, bombings against the police and riots were extremely rare events. Today, reading about such incidents is considered part of daily life.*

3/9/18

https://www.economist.com/news/euro...edish-sense-security-why-are-young-men-sweden
IT WAS supposed to be a sneaky afternoon cigarette break.

*Then a gunman in black appeared and shot 15-year-old Robin Sinisalo in the head. *

His older brother Alejandro was shot four times. Robin died immediately on the doorstep of his home in north-west Stockholm. Alejandro was left in a wheelchair for life. Two years later, the boys’ mother, Carolina, says the police still have no leads.

Robin’s fate is increasingly common in Sweden. In 2011 only 17 people were killed by firearms. In 2017 the country had over 300 shootings, leaving 41 people dead and over 100 injured.

The violence mostly stems from street gangs running small-time drug operations in big cities such as Stockholm, the capital, Malmö and Gothenburg.

*Gang members have even used hand grenades to attack police stations.*

Between 2010 and 2015, people were killed by illegal firearms at the same rate as in southern Italy. Though Sweden is still a relatively peaceful place, this is worrying.

*Acquiring a legal gun requires strict screening, but Kalashnikovs from the Yugoslav wars are readily available on the black market. To sweeten the deal, smugglers often throw in hand grenades (there were 43 grenade incidents in Sweden last year). The victims and perpetrators of gang violence are nearly always young men.
*
But shootings with illegal guns have been rising since the mid-2000s. Most gang members are indeed first- or second-generation immigrants—72% of them, according to one report, but they tend not to be new arrivals. 



3/3/18

Sweden grenades increasing...


Hand Grenades and Gang Violence Rattle Sweden’s Middle Class

Weapons from a faraway, long-ago war are flowing into immigrant neighborhoods here, puncturing Swedes’ sense of confidence and security. 

The country’s murder rate remains low, by American standards, and violent crime is stable or dropping in many places. But gang-related assaults and shootings are becoming more frequent, and the number of neighborhoods categorized by the police as “marred by crime, social unrest and insecurity” is rising. Crime and immigration are certain to be key issues in September’s general election, alongside the traditional debates over education and health care.

Continue reading the main story


Part of the reason is that Sweden’s gang violence, long contained within low-income suburbs, has begun to spill out. In large cities, hospitals report armed confrontations in emergency rooms, and school administrators say threats and weapons have become commonplace. Last week two men from Uppsala, both in their 20s, were arrested on charges of throwing grenades at the home of a bank employee who investigates fraud cases.

An earlier jolt came with the death of Mr. Zuniga, who on Jan. 7 picked up the grenade, which the police believe had been thrown by members of a local gang targeting a rival gang or police officers.

----

Affixed to the wall in Mr. Appelgren’s office in Stockholm’s Police Headquarters is a chart showing the increase in the use of hand grenades. Until 2014 there were about a handful every year. In 2015, that number leapt: 45 grenades were seized by the police, and 10 others were detonated. The next year, 55 were seized and 35 detonated. A modest decrease occurred in 2017, when 39 were seized and 21 were detonated.

Mr. Appelgren has watched the trend apprehensively, calling it an arms race among gangs.

“I think we’re going to see, if we don’t stop it, more drive-by shootings with Kalashnikovs and hand grenades,” he said. “They throw rocks and bottles at our cars, and they trick us in an ambush. When will it happen that they ambush us with Kalashnikovs? It’s coming.”



https://www.thelocal.se/20170905/wh...ings-per-capita-than-norway-and-germany-malmo

Sweden has in recent years seen a sharp increase in the number of shootings per capita, with research suggesting that the Scandinavian country is statistically on par with southern Italy and parts of Ireland.
In 2016, some 250 shootings (random, fatal and non-fatal) were registered by police in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. In 2014, that number came to 200, indicating that Sweden is experiencing a drastic rise in such incidents.
“We don’t really know why yet, but what we can see is that the increase comes as we also see a rise in gang-related crimes and a growing number of criminal networks,” Manne Gerell, a criminologist at Malmö University, told The Local, after Swedish public radio first wrote about new research he is involved in.
One study which is yet to be published suggests that Sweden experienced four to five times as many fatal shootings per capita as Norway and Germany in 2008-2014, two otherwise similar countries. Previous figures have shown that deadly violence in general is going down in Sweden, but gun violence has gone up.
Gerell also singled out Malmö, Sweden’s third-largest city, as the one place where shootings are becoming particularly common.
“Malmö stands out,” he said, noting that the southern city is somewhat more exposed to social problems and poverty in comparison to both the capital and Gothenburg.
“Malmö is also what we describe an ‘early adopter’ when it comes to crime. It was the first of the three cities where hand grenade crimes became more commonplace and it was also the place for the establishment of Sweden’s first biker-gangs. We don’t know whether this is to do with its proximity to the European continent or not, but it could explain why the trends seem to start there.”
=========

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6770170

New research says Sweden sees more deadly shootings per capita than its closest European neighbors, and the low number of gun crimes solved by police here may be part of the reason why.
Sweden experiences four to five times more fatal shootings per capita than Norway and Germany, according to the ongoing research from Malmö University, Karolinska Hospital and Stockholm University. 
The areas with the most shootings are Sweden's major cities: Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. The victims as well as the perpetrators also tend to be younger than those in other the countries.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 8, 2021)

It's a fantasy. It's fun to pretend and generate some fake outrage.

The guberment's comin ta take mah guns!

It hasn't happened in 230 years.


----------



## Flash (Dec 8, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> It's a fantasy. It's fun to pretend and generate some fake outrage.
> 
> The guberment's comin ta take mah guns!
> 
> It hasn't happened in 230 years.


It has happened on a smaller scale in some Communist run parts of the US and it would happen on a National scale if the filthy Democrats got their way.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> I believe I claimed reduced numbers of handguns and military style semi autos in circulation/private hands reduced firearm crime and firearm homicide rates.


-Snort-
You don't even remember what you claimed.
- Snort-

See post #136
See post #146
See post 1#50

The claims for which you cannot demontrate the attached necessary relationhips are quoted therein.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Abatis is one large bag of wind full of bullshit.


Why does insulting other people make you feel better about yourself?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

Anathema said:


> I was pretty much with you until you used  this phrase.
> 
> “Common Sense Gun Laws” and “gun culture” are left-wing phrases used most often  by those who tend not to understand what guns are, their proper place in society. That makes me question whether you truly come to the discussion without a bias.


The first place I saw "gun culture" was actually by a staunch gun right supporter. (As in: he is a gunsmith and has a revolved named after him.)


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check. Private sells included.
> That is common sense.


Because it is impossible to actually enforce absent universal registration.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> Easy: Increase the punishments for gun crimes.
> 
> Now, tit-for-tat: Give me one gun regulation which _won't _adversely affect law abiding citizens but _will _affect _only _criminals...


Felon in possession of a gun gets mandatory ten years in prison.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Movies are not reality.  In reality very few incidents regarding a licensed armed citizen results in a shooting.
> 
> A man tries to steal a woman's purse in a store parking lot, an armed citizen comes to her aid and pulls out his weapon.  That kind of changes the entire picture.  In most cases, the criminal will run for his life.  It gets reported to the police and again, unless it's a slow news day, this could have happened a mile from your home and you'd never know it if the media doesn't report the story.


I suspect many times, it doesn't even get reported.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Felon in possession of a gun gets mandatory ten years in prison.



Make that 30.......then they either stop carrying illegal guns, or they are out of our hair for 30 years


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Carl Bogus????
> 
> Jesus H. Christ, have a little self respect will ya . . .


No, he's really a law professor.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Felon in possession of a gun gets mandatory ten years in prison.



I would prefer that a felon in possession of a gun gets 25 years, with no opportunity for parole...


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Abatis is, obviously, a very freighted individual who finds security and self-esteem in owning a gun. A sad but very dangerous bunch. A gun makes them feel like they are somebody.
> The majority of gun owners are not driven to own a gun by their cowardice but those who do, stick out with their whacky rhetoric.


Describe, in detail, the training that makes you able to make such a sweeping diagnosis of millions of people you have not met. This should include but not be limited to the medical school you attended, the year you got your PhD in psychiatry, and the states where you are licensed to practice. Be specific.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Because you can never stop the sale of illegal guns, that's why.  If they don't get them from stealing them out of homes, they will make them.  Ever hear of a 3-D printer?  They make ghost guns.  In other words guns that cannot be traced back to anybody.  Guns are not that complicated of a tool.  It's metal (and plastic in some cases) that can be manufactured by people with low cost machinery and you can make guns in your basement.
> 
> You just can't seem to get that out of your head.  You actually believe by disarming society the bad guys will give up their guns and never buy more.  Wrong.  All it will do is stop good people from owning them.


Or the cartels will just bring them in from Mexico with the illegal aliens and drugs.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Or the cartels will just bring them in from Mexico with the illegal aliens and drugs.



The cartels have set up machine shops on thw border to makw guns....


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> For any sort of dent in firearm crime or firearm homicide rates the number of firearms in circulation/private hands- specifically handguns and military style semi automatics- will have to be reduced. A buyback scheme seems to be the best road to achieve that.


WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP, what do you believe is the rate of gun violence now, compared to 25 years ago? Be honest.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP, what do you believe is the rate of gun violence now, compared to 25 years ago? Be honest.


I know I know I know I know


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 8, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The cartels have set up machine shops on the border to make guns....


Or that...though I thought they just bought guns from crooked Mexican officials, because it was easier than making them?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The other developed nations allowed 12 million innocent mwn, women and children  to be myrdered by the German socialists in just 6 years...
> 
> Our gun murder rate hasnt reached that number in 87 years ..... you like the efficiency of state conducted murder....


Do you think owning a gun, in today's world, will prevent a rogue government from coming to get you? What a dumbass.
While you are hunkered down with all your guns the government will use a plane or a drone and blow you to smithereens. They may come with a tank or other armored vehicle. They may blow you to hell with  long range artillery from many miles away.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Describe, in detail, the training that makes you able to make such a sweeping diagnosis of millions of people you have not met. This should include but not be limited to the medical school you attended, the year you got your PhD in psychiatry, and the states where you are licensed to practice. Be specific.


The same simple criteria used today. Based on mental health or convicted of a felony. It works fine today. Do you know of anyone who wants to get a gun and should have a gun that is forbidden by a background check.
You are afraid of everything, you are a coward. That is why you own a gun. You are afraid the background check may not be fair. You are scared of other people so you have a gun. You are afraid of the government so you want a gun.
SPINELESS COWARD.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why does insulting other people make you feel better about yourself?


They are not insults. I am telling them who they are without any fluff.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> They are not insults. I


Why do you think lying makes you look better than the people you insult?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

Abatis said:


> All you can do is attack me with personal insults.  You can not challenge me on the Constitution or the law, you have no competency in that, you can only emote and cry . . .
> All you have is your sad, leftist hate and perverse need to subjugate and control other people.   Funniest thing is, you are not against guns or killing people at all; your happiness depends on making sure it is the "right" people kneeling at the trench
> 
> View attachment 573007


You are not following the Constitution by crying for, just guns, small arms. The The intent of the 2nd amendment was lost long ago. As arms advanced and became more deadly, people and state militias were not allowed the same arms as the Federal Government.
If you are advocating for the true intent of the 2nd amendment, you should be asking for every arm the US military has.
Know the Constitution before you say you are protecting the Constitution.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do you think lying makes you look better than the people you insult?


No lies, the truth. It is not my fault the truth hurts. Some people cannot handle the truth.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> You are not following the Constitution by crying for, just guns, small arms. The The intent of the 2nd amendment was lost long ago. As arms advanced and became more deadly, people and state militias were not allowed the same arms as the Federal Government.
> If you are advocating for the true intent of the 2nd amendment, you should be asking for every arm the US military has.
> Know the Constitution before you say you are protecting the Constitution.


Just so we're clear:
You believe I should be able to legally buy an M60 through the Sears catalog and have the mailman deliver it to my house.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> No lies, the truth.


I don't care if you lie to me like this, but you should really avoid lying to yourself.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Democrats routinely run on the promise of more and more and more gun control.
> Should we not take them seriously?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I don't care if you lie to me like this, but you should really avoid lying to yourself.


I know you are, what am I. The old grade school come back for a claim you cannot refute. Nice try.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

This has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that Democrats routinely run on the promise of more and more and more gun control.
It also does nothing to answer the question if we should not take those promises seriously

You, of course, knew this when you posted it.
Given that - why should we take YOU seriously?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I know you are, what am I. The old grade school come back for a claim you cannot refute. Nice try.


You mean a claim you know you cannot support.
The fact you refuse to admit, or refuse to understand, you are insulting people in no way means you are not.

And so, I ask again:
Why does insulting other people make you feel better?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just so we're clear:
> You believe I should be able to legally buy an M60 through the Sears catalog and have the mailman deliver it to my house.


No I do not. But the Constitution intended for all individuals and state militias could obtain the same arms as the federal government and military. There was no M60, or machine gun or sears catalog at that time.
The main arms were musket loaders and cannons.
The true meaning of the 2nd amendment has been altered as arms became more deadly. 
I am glad I am able to teach about the history of our country.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You mean a claim you know you cannot support.
> The fact you refuse to admit, or refuse to understand, you are insulting people in no way means you are not.
> 
> And so, I ask again:
> Why does insulting other people make you feel better?


I apologize. I get very impatient and frustrated with stupid, misguided people who are hurting the country I love.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> No I do not. But the Constitution intended for all individuals and state militias could obtain the same arms as the federal government and military.


And thus,  my question about the M60 machine gun.


ElmerMudd said:


> There was no M60, or machine gun or sears catalog at that time.



_Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment .  We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.  Just as the First Amendment  protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment  applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) ,* the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*_
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.


ElmerMudd said:


> The true meaning of the 2nd amendment has been altered as arms became more deadly.


The "true meaning"...  according to you.
With said "true meaning" meaning that my right to own and use an M60 machine gun shall not be infringed .
Thus
You DO believe I should be able to legally buy an M60 through the Sears catalog and have the mailman deliver it to my house.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I apologize. I get very impatient and frustrated with stupid, misguided people who are hurting the country I love.


Fact remains:
You know your response was meaningless, and you know you cannot provide one that is meaningful.

And you haven't yet asnwered:
Why does insulting people make you feel better?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:
> You know your response was meaningless, and you know you cannot provide one that is meaningful.
> 
> And you haven't yet asnwered:
> Why does insulting people make you feel better?


I need to follow the advise of Mark Twain


----------



## cnm (Dec 8, 2021)

Deplorable heads explode. Show me the necessary relationship!

_New Zealand to ban smoking for next generation in bid to outlaw habit by 2025_​_Legislation will mean people currently aged 14 and under will never be able to legally purchase tobacco_​


----------



## cnm (Dec 8, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP, what do you believe is the rate of gun violence now, compared to 25 years ago? Be honest.


I certainly haven't bothered to look it up. What difference does it make?


----------



## cnm (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The claims for which you cannot demontrate the attached necessary relationhips are quoted therein.


That you refuse to see the experiences of other developed nations that have lower numbers of handguns and military style semi automatics in private hands is not my fault. Just like the way tobacco lobbyists refused to see lung cancer figures. Invincible ignorance is called invincible for a reason.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I need to follow the advise of Mark Twain
> 
> View attachment 573388


^^^^
Textbook example of irony

Why is it again, insulting people make you feel better?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> That you refuse to see the experiences of other developed nations is not my fault.


But your inability to demonstrate the necessary relationships you claim, is.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> Textbook example of irony
> 
> Why is it again, insulting people make you feel better?


The irony is in the thread title.


----------



## cnm (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> -Snort-
> You don't even remember what you claimed.
> - Snort-
> 
> ...


Link them if you want them addressed.


----------



## cnm (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> But your inability to demonstrate the necessary relationships you claim, is.


I have demonstrated that other developed nations with lower rates of handguns and military style semi automatics in private hands have lower rates of firearm crime and firearm homicide. You don't dispute that, rather you have played tobacco lobbyist.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> Link them if you want them addressed.


I gave you the post numbers.
And they're YOUR claims -- if aren't interested in supporting the claims you made, then I accept your concession.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> I have demonstrated that other developed nations with lower rates of handguns and military style semi automatics in private hands have lower rates of firearm crime and firearm homicide


^^^^
This is a lie, as you have done no such thing.
Further, you have not demonstrated the necessary relationship between the effect you cite the cause you claim.
And you wont - because you can't.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 8, 2021)

cnm said:


> Your societal values follow those of most Americans, from what I see, where individual freedoms overrule societal benefit.



Correct.  The powers of government are limited, no matter how wonderful the benevolence and benefits of government action is couched.



cnm said:


> The personal sacrifice of reducing ease of access to firearms is too great when weighed against other people's school kids.



Correct, the failure of government to perform its duty to provide societal security and dispense justice, is not an argument to restrict the rights of citizens who are not committing crimes.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 8, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA



For some "common sense" means everyone having guns. For others it mean nobody has guns.

Also the US is lost in a swamp of partisan politics, unless you change this, forget sensible politics at all.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 8, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> This is a lie, as you have done no such thing.
> Further, you have not demonstrated the necessary relationship between the effect you cite the cause you claim.
> And you wont - because you can't.



Then I will






						Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control
					

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United States, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development




					www.gunpolicy.org
				




USA: 120.5 guns per 100 people. Gun homicides: 4.39
UK: 5.03 guns per 100 people. Gun homicides: 0.02
Germany: 32.47 guns per 100 people. Gun homicides: 0.06
Switzerland: between 28.31 and 41.28 per 100 people. Gun homicides: 0.13
Japan: 0.25 guns per 100 people. Gun homicides: 0 (they get some, 0.4 is the highest year, usually it's around 0 to 0.01.
Spain: 7.5 gun per 100 people. Gun homicides: 0.1

Clearly this is not an exact science. Spain has less guns per 100 people than Germany but a higher number of homicides. There are plenty of cultural things going on. Also, if one person owns one gun, it's different than if they own ten guns. It depends on how countries define how many guns are in the country, legal or illegal etc. Some of these might just be guestimates.

Germany has 5% of people living at home with a gun, Spain has 12%. So, clearly there's something else going on there. 

In 2012 after a mass gun killing, Germany found that 1.4 million people owned 5.5 million guns. 

However the biggest thing here is easy access to guns. Number of guns doesn't tell us that much, in the US there is such easily availability of guns, whereas countries like German and Switzerland it's much harder to get guns, and people are forced to be much more responsible with their guns.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 9, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> No, he's really a law professor.


He is a charltran.  You need to go back to 1989 and a groundbreaking law review article titled, _*The Embarrassing Second Amendment*_. This was a liberal academic's admission that it was embarrassing how wrong he was on the 2nd Amendment and his challenge to other academics to revisit their 2nd Amendment understanding.

And they did, and that fresh scholarship prodded a cabal of prolific anti-individual right "intellectuals" like Carl Bogus and Saul Cornell, Jack Rakove, Michael Dorf, Adam Winkler, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dennis Henigan, to go on writing sprees, throwing everything on the wall (no matter how ridiculous) to try to slow the death of the various "collective right" models.

Bogus' _Hidden History_ in 1998 was just one in dozens of quickly forgotten articles announced in hastily arranged symposiums of anti-gun acedemics through the 90's, trying to quickly build a body of work within leftist academia, with incestuous citations to each other, praying to be cited by some leftist judge somewhere . . .

That Bogus' bogus theory keeps getting resurrected, (in *2013 by Thom Hartmann* and then *May of 2021 by Carol Anderson*), just shows how desperate and defeated the anti-gunner's are.

They have no legal / constitutional argument to stand on, the only reason Bogus' crap keeps getting regurgitated is it fits so many narratives of the cultural Marxists, the anti-Constitution / anti-2nd Amendment authoritarians and of course, the racial arsonists and they all bark at it like Pavlov's dog.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> For any sort of dent in firearm crime or firearm homicide rates the number of firearms in circulation/private hands- specifically handguns and military style semi automatics- will have to be reduced. A buyback scheme seems to be the best road to achieve that.


Except those of us with them aren’t going to sell them back willingly.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> The same simple criteria used today. Based on mental health or convicted of a felony. It works fine today. Do you know of anyone who wants to get a gun and should have a gun that is forbidden by a background check.
> You are afraid of everything, you are a coward. That is why you own a gun. You are afraid the background check may not be fair. You are scared of other people so you have a gun. You are afraid of the government so you want a gun.
> SPINELESS COWARD.


Not a GOOD deflection. Not even fair...1.5/10 at best. Kind of pathetic, actually.

In other words: you are so full of shit that your breath stinks.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> They are not insults. I am telling them who they are without any fluff.


You are either projecting or hallucinating.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> No lies, the truth. It is not my fault the truth hurts. Some people cannot handle the truth.



You would not recognize truth if it marched past you playing _Thriller_ on a pink flugelhorn.



cnm said:


> I certainly haven't bothered to look it up. What difference does it make?



I accept your concession.


----------



## cnm (Dec 9, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I gave you the post numbers.


I'm not trawling back through the thread to make your argument. Lobbyists can support their own allegations. Or not.


----------



## cnm (Dec 9, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> I accept your concession.


I believe I have never not conceded Americans are happy to pay the price of other people's school kids in order to retain easy access to firearms. They are a bargain after all.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 9, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Except those of us with them aren’t going to sell them back willingly.



The government can not "buy back" something it never owned.

.


----------



## cnm (Dec 9, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Except those of us with them aren’t going to sell them back willingly.


I sympathise. Other people's school kids are a really good bargain. A steal, in fact. One won't find a better price of freedom anywhere.


----------



## cnm (Dec 9, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The government can not "buy back" something it never owned.


Lol. Will you feel happier if the transaction is termed 'forced sale'?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> I believe I have never not conceded Americans are happy to pay the price of other people's school kids in order to retain easy access to firearms. They are a bargain after all.


You are willfully ignorant and content to remain that way. That is a concession.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> Lol. Will you feel happier if the transaction is termed 'forced sale'?


How many billions upon billions of dollars do you plan to pour down that rat hole? Off the top of my head, you'd probably need seven figures for what my uncle owns. (One gun was appraised at six figures ten years ago.)


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Then I will
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You forgot to factor in the 12 million innocent men, women and children murderd bt the Governments of Europe over 6 years....

In 87 years of gun murder in the U.S. we arent even close to that number......879,000 over 87 years

12 million in 6.

After the people of Europe had their guns taken with the same promises of safety that you keep giving.....the governments that made that promise either committed the murder or handed their citizens to the socialists to be murdered....

Governments are the worst murderers when they go rogue......but first, they always take the guns....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> I believe I have never not conceded Americans are happy to pay the price of other people's school kids in order to retain easy access to firearms. They are a bargain after all.


 
Ameericans save more lives with their guns than criminals murder with their guns.....guns in the hands of normal people save lives.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> I sympathise. Other people's school kids are a really good bargain. A steal, in fact. One won't find a better price of freedom anywhere.




lives saved by people with guns.......from rape, robbery, murder, beatings and stabbings........

600 million guns in private hands......over 21.25 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



American use those legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...



Gun deaths...the truth....



2019...



Gun murder...10,235



Gun accidents...486



Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.





Gun suicides... 23,491...





Americans use their legal guns 1.2million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.



Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





* that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—*



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





*So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.*
*
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
*
*So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> I sympathise. Other people's school kids are a really good bargain. A steal, in fact. One won't find a better price of freedom anywhere.




Here ....answer these questions...

You, as all anti-gun extremists do, stand on the bodies of dead children and smear yourself with their blood......you think that the tragedy of a child death gives you power.....

Meanwhile, guns save lives.......lots of lives every single year.........

*According to you, if we must ban guns to save the lives of children....then cars, which kill far more children each and every year, must also be banned....right?

Cars killed 1,787 children ages 0-16 in 2019...*
*
Guns?  269 ages 0-14....I stopped at 14 because around 15, gang members at that age are no longer simple children......
*
*So.......if we need to ban guns because a total of 269 children died from gun violence......then cars must be banned too....correct?

A few more questions.....*

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
=======

The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."

Does this make sense to you?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> I sympathise. Other people's school kids are a really good bargain. A steal, in fact. One won't find a better price of freedom anywhere.




269 children died from gun violence....mostly the children of criminals who should have been in jail, but released by the democrat party over and over again...children caught in the crossfire of their criminal parent, targeted by other criminals.....

51 children died from accidental gun deaths......again, mostly because the criminal parent didn't secure their illegally possessed gun....

Cars killed 1,787 children ages 0-16....

So again, according to your logic, all cars must be banned.......correct?

Meanwhile....Americans  use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to save lives.....according to the Centers for Disease Control...

Can you tell which number is bigger, and which number represents more lives saved?



			Application Dispatcher


----------



## Abatis (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> Lol. Will you feel happier if the transaction is termed 'forced sale'?



Sure, that's closer but perhaps complete honesty is in order?  Under the most generous terms let's call it dimes-on-the-dollar compensated confiscation . . .

Make no mistake though, it remains the confiscation of lawfully owned property impressed on people who have not been even suspected of any crime . . . 

Because -- _CRIME_!

Only statist jack-booted authoritarian leftists could dream such shit up.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> I'm not trawling back through the thread to make your argumen


I accept your concession of the points.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Not a GOOD deflection. Not even fair...1.5/10 at best. Kind of pathetic, actually.
> 
> In other words: you are so full of shit that your breath stinks.


I feel it was an excellent response. It is tough to have a intelligent exchange with a person consumed by fear. Don't worry, you are going to be OK even without your guns. The boogeyman is not out to get you.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You forgot to factor in the 12 million innocent men, women and children murderd bt the Governments of Europe over 6 years....
> 
> In 87 years of gun murder in the U.S. we arent even close to that number......879,000 over 87 years
> 
> ...


Americans are killing Americans, with guns, at a higher rate than European governments are killings people with guns.  Plus, I have lived in western Europe and you are full of bullshit.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Americans are killing Americans, with guns, at a higher rate than European governments are killings people with guns.


How is this a meaningful comparison?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> How is this a meaningful comparison?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Maybe if the left shut their mouths about getting our guns, it wouldn't be an issue.  Read Dementia's plan on guns in this country while he was running.  It used to be on his website, but perhaps he removed it after he supposedly won.  But I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.


The dishonest right will never stop lying about guns being banned and confiscated, of course.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> obama packed the courts with the same judges upholding bans on AR-15s and 30 round magazines......he didn't want to lose seats in congress to anti-gun votes, so he simply packed the lower courts with idiots like you....


Eight years of conservatives lying, not one gun banned or confiscated.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> View attachment 573654


Translation:
You know you cannot meaningfully answer the question.
Thank you


----------



## Circe (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


No we don't. Leave other people alone, or your name is Mudd.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 9, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Obunghole had whatever gun control nuts he had, cut off by the Supreme Court before he took office.
> 
> In the run-up to the 2008 election the Dems were trying to top each other with their gun control plans.  While DC Mayor Fenty was cautioned against appealing _Parker_ to SCOTUS, he went ahead and filed.  While there was fear, nobody on the left ever thought SCOTUS would take the case and nobody wanted to believe the 2nd Amendment actually secured a right of the citizen . . .  They all were deluding themselves with 64 years of "collective right" bullshit . . .  And then SCOTUS took the case and then _Heller_ was handed down 5 months before the election and all the great leftist gun control dreams evaporated.
> 
> ...


And with President Biden in office,  conservatives are again lying about bans and confiscations.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And with President Biden in office,  conservatives are again lying about bans and confiscations.


The only way this can be true is if conservatives know the Democrats are lying when they promise gun bans and confiscations on the campaign trail.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> They like to pretend that the gooberment is going take yer guns away.
> 
> They like feeling outraged by this fantasy.


So, this is fantasy?


Did you hear that thundering applause?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And with President Biden in office,  conservatives are again lying about bans and confiscations.


Is this a lie?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> They like to pretend that the gooberment is going take yer guns away.
> 
> They like feeling outraged by this fantasy.


Exactly. 

Conservatives use the ban/confiscation lie to frighten and motivate the base.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Exactly.
> Conservatives use the ban/confiscation lie to frighten and motivate the base.


The only way this can be true is if conservatives know the Democrats are lying when they promise gun bans and confiscations on the campaign trail.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> It's a fantasy. It's fun to pretend and generate some fake outrage.
> 
> The guberment's comin ta take mah guns!
> 
> It hasn't happened in 230 years.


Another example of the right's fear-mongering.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Conservatives use the ban/confiscation lie to frighten and motivate the base.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Another example of the right's fear-mongering.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Another example of the right's fear-mongering.


The only way this can be true is if conservatives know the Democrats are lying when they promise gun bans and confiscations on the campaign trail.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 9, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The only way this can be true is if conservatives know the Democrats are lying when they promise gun bans and confiscations on the campaign trail.


All I have to do is re-post this video, and Clayton has no response.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> All I have to do is re-post this video, and Clayton has no response.


Clayton lies.   Repeatedly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> For any sort of dent in firearm crime or firearm homicide rates the number of firearms in circulation/private hands- specifically handguns and military style semi automatics- will have to be reduced. A buyback scheme seems to be the best road to achieve that.


In the United States, such a policy would be unconstitutional, a violation of the Second, Fifth, and 14th Amendments; further proof of the rightwing lie about bans and confiscations.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The dishonest right will never stop lying about guns being banned and confiscated, of course.



So in other words you don't have the guts to find Dementia's plans and read them.  Surrender noted.  But since you're such a busy person, if you really want to know what was in there, just ask and I'll post the main points.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In the United States, such a policy would be unconstitutional, a violation of the Second, Fifth, and 14th Amendments; further proof of the rightwing lie about bans and confiscations.


Not only do you lie, you fail to understand what you read.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> I sympathise. Other people's school kids are a really good bargain. A steal, in fact. One won't find a better price of freedom anywhere.


Stop with the hysterics.  Students shot in schools are almost an unmeasurable statistic.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

Circe said:


> No we don't. Leave other people alone, or your name is Mudd.


Sorry, dude. Not leaving you and others like you alone. You are dangerous when left alone.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 9, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The government can not "buy back" something it never owned.
> 
> .



They do it all the time actually.  They buy back guns here, take them to the steel mills and have them melted down.  Crime increases and they keep buying guns off of people.  Their no questions asked policy means those weapons could have been used in a robbery, assault or murder, but they are willing to destroy evidence for criminals just to get their hands on their guns and solve absolutely nothing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> I believe I have never not conceded Americans are happy to pay the price of other people's school kids in order to retain easy access to firearms. They are a bargain after all.



Back to that stupid unproven theory that if you take away guns from good people, bad people will happily give theirs up. You don't know what goes on in this country which is why your comments to the rest of us appear so stupid.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Eight years of conservatives lying, not one gun banned or confiscated.


Pardon us for believing you when you tell us you intend to do something.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Conservatives use the ban/confiscation lie to frighten and motivate the base.


The conservative base, and more specifically Trumpism, is driven by fear. Trump plays on their fears. Their lives are driven by fear. Fear makes people irrational. Fear makes people miserable. They are a cowardly, miserable group and they do not have to be.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 9, 2021)

cnm said:


> That you refuse to see the experiences of other developed nations that have lower numbers of handguns and military style semi automatics in private hands is not my fault. Just like the way tobacco lobbyists refused to see lung cancer figures. Invincible ignorance is called invincible for a reason.



Total horseshit. 

Take a nice white middle-class suburb with virtually no violent crime.  Make a law that all households must own a firearm.  Their crime statistics will not change.  Now go to the inner-city ghettos, make a law that nobody is allowed to own a firearm, and their high rate of crime will not change either. 

You place the onus of our crime problems on an inanimate object instead of the people committing the crimes.  It's the stupidest approach to solving crime anybody could come up with.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> The same simple criteria used today. Based on mental health or convicted of a felony. It works fine today. Do you know of anyone who wants to get a gun and should have a gun that is forbidden by a background check.











						John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC
					

After a mountain of paperwork, a $430 fee and waiting for more than 8 months, he was told he didn't demonstrate a need.




					www.range365.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 9, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> I would prefer that a felon in possession of a gun gets 25 years, with no opportunity for parole...



I disagree.  10 years for illegally owning the weapon, 25 years if the weapon was stolen.  We have to start working on stopping these smash and grabs of gun stores, people stealing guns out of cars and homes.  If nobody wants to go near a stolen gun, the market dries up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> The conservative base, and more specifically Trumpism, is driven by fear. Trump plays on their fears. Their lives are driven by fear. Fear makes people irrational. Fear makes people miserable. They are a cowardly, miserable group and they do not have to be.



You people constantly pull this shit.  You take attributes of the left and say it's the right that created them.  Give us an example of how the "right" plays on our fears.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I disagree.  10 years for illegally owning the weapon, 25 years if the weapon was stolen.  We have to start working on stopping these smash and grabs of gun stores, people stealing guns out of cars and homes.  If nobody wants to go near a stolen gun, the market dries up.



An illegally owned weapon would add 25 years onto the sentence for any crime committed with the gun. A stolen gun would add 40 years.

Until punishments are made ridiculously severe, we won't see any significant change...


----------



## Circe (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Sorry, dude. Not leaving you and others like you alone. You are dangerous when left alone.


You better believe it, buster.


----------



## Circe (Dec 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You people constantly pull this shit.  You take attributes of the left and say it's the right that created them.  Give us an example of how the "right" plays on our fears.


Trust me, we got the fears already, looking at the vicious mess the Left has made of this country. The Right, and Trump, is the ANSWER.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC
> 
> 
> After a mountain of paperwork, a $430 fee and waiting for more than 8 months, he was told he didn't demonstrate a need.
> ...


No system is perfect. I would rather have a some deserving individuals not get a gun than have many who should never have a gun, get one. If you are deserving you can dispute the findings.

Just like the no fly list after 9/11. Many dangerous people were put on a list so they could no fly commercially in the US. It probably saved many lives. There were a few people put on the list erroneously. They were able to eventually get their name taken off. But it is better than letting any one who could be a radical jihadist fly.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

Circe said:


> You better believe it, buster.


Woo, a dangerous dude. But you have to have a gun to be a tough guy. A 98 pound weakling can have a gun and be dangerous.


----------



## Circe (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Woo, a dangerous dude. But you have to have a gun to be a tough guy. A 98 pound weakling can have a gun and be dangerous.


I may be 98 pounds (sometimes) and I have a gun or few, but I'm not a weakling and I'm not a dude, dude.   👿

Men are so completely unable to figure out the most basic stuff. It's amazing.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You people constantly pull this shit.  You take attributes of the left and say it's the right that created them.  Give us an example of how the "right" plays on our fears.


Scared immigrants will take their jobs. Scared they do not have the skills to compete in today's job market. Scared of the government . Scared they are not safe without guns. Scared of any people that do not look like them and come from the same culture are a threat. Scared the election was fixed. Scared of liberals. Scared the COVID vaccine will make them magnetic or some other horrible thing. Scared of something called the deep state. Scared of their own shadow. Scared of their children because too liberal.  I could write a book of your fears.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

Circe said:


> I may be 98 pounds (sometimes) and I have a gun or few, but I'm not a weakling and I'm not a dude, dude.   👿
> 
> Men are so completely unable to figure out the most basic stuff. It's amazing.


Oh a tough dudette.


----------



## Circe (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Oh a tough dudette.


NOW you're catching on!!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> No system is perfect. I would rather have a some deserving individuals not get a gun than have many who should never have a gun, get one. If you are deserving you can dispute the findings.


This is no different that being OK with some innocent people to going to jail just to make sure all the guilty ones do - they can appeal, after all.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

Circe said:


> NOW you're catching on!!


I prefer dudettes. I hate to admit it but dudettes can be smarter than dudes. I want to emphasize can be but too many times are. I happen to be one of the smartest people in the world without consideration of dude or dudette.


----------



## Circe (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I prefer dudettes. I hate to admit it but dudettes can be smarter than dudes. I want to emphasize can be but too many times are. I happen to be one of the smartest people in the world without consideration of dude or dudette.


Of course I TOTALLY believe you. You can trust me on that -------


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is no different that being OK with some innocent people to going to jail just to make sure all the guilty ones do - they can appeal, after all.


That is a very real aspect to our judicial system, unfortunately. A bigger problem is those who should go to jail do not. Our judicial system favors people with money over those who do not have money. Another imperfect system within government but still one of the best judicial systems in the world. We are much better with an imperfect judicial system than no judicial system at all. Just like we are better off with arms regulations than no arms regulations.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

Circe said:


> Of course I TOTALLY believe you. You can trust me on that -------


Thank you, I am sure it is very apparent in my posts.


----------



## Circe (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Thank you, I am sure it is very apparent in my posts.


Oh, it is, it is. 

It's wonderful how smart people can show high intelligence even in posts that are dead wrong.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


So you're just executing a naked gun grab by making a mental health motion in a court of law, or invoking a red flag law to seize a suspect's guns? Are you saying we have guns registered in our names and people are telling the truth all of sudden in court? I didn't think so either. Lying thieving murdering scumbag gun-grabbing democrats all of them. Doctors with a needle and syringe full of heroin on a black bag job in the middle of the night.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> So you're just executing a naked gun grab by making a mental health motion in a court of law, or invoking a red flag law to seize a suspect's guns? Are you saying we have guns registered in our names and people are telling the truth all of sudden in court? I didn't think so either. Lying thieving murdering scumbag gun-grabbing democrats all of them. Doctors with a needle and syringe full of heroin on a black bag job in the middle of the night.


Justacolon, I hate to tell you but the government has already restricted the arms you can buy. The Constitution promises all arms not just all guns. Can you buy a machine gun, no, can you buy a tank, no, can you buy long range artillery,no, how about an airplane that can drop bombs. Try buying a bomb. It will not happen.
Come on, man. Do not put up with it . Constitution promises all arms. You cannot hold off the government with a fricking gun of any kind.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> The Constitution promises all arms not just all guns.


Skip to it, buddy. Jackass Democrats in the government need to be SERVED and informed that they are in armed rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution.


ElmerMudd said:


> Can you buy a machine gun, no, can you buy a tank, no, can you buy long range artillery,no, how about an airplane that can drop bombs. Try buying a bomb.


Private aviation is in fact legal, cows shit in the horse field and farmers have ready access to fertilizer.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 9, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Skip to it, buddy. Jackass Democrats in the government need to be SERVED and informed that they are in armed rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution.
> 
> Private aviation is in fact legal, cows shit in the horse field and farmers have ready access to fertilizer.


justacolon is scared to fight for all arms available to the federal government as promised in the 2nd amendment. I do not think he could handle much more than a gun.
The government is coming to get you and your guns will not save you. As Democrats control the government, they will have the complete US arsenal at their disposal. There coming for you with all of it. Good luck, but you will have a lot of guns.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 9, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> all arms available to the federal government as promised in the 2nd amendment


So that's what the 2A means to a Dim?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I feel it was an excellent response. It is tough to have a intelligent exchange with a person consumed by fear. Don't worry, you are going to be OK even without your guns. The boogeyman is not out to get you.


You're the one terrified of an inanimate object, kid.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Thank you, I am sure it is very apparent in my posts.


You're a legend in your own mind.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> justacolon is scared to fight for all arms available to the federal government as promised in the 2nd amendment. I do not think he could handle much more than a gun.
> The government is coming to get you and your guns will not save you. As Democrats control the government, they will have the complete US arsenal at their disposal. There coming for you with all of it. Good luck, but you will have a lot of guns.


Are you on some sort of drugs?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> All that bullshit spanning 100 pages only to say that "the words of the 2nd Amendment don't mean what they say."


The Supreme Court has long rejected insurrectionist dogma; that there is no right of the people to form a ‘militia’ absent government authorization, that there is no right of the people to possess weapons identical to that of the Federal government, and there is no right of the people to take up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> The conservative base, and more specifically Trumpism, is driven by fear. Trump plays on their fears. Their lives are driven by fear. Fear makes people irrational. Fear makes people miserable. They are a cowardly, miserable group and they do not have to be.


True.

Of course, the lie about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ long predate Trump.

For decades with every Democratic administration came the right’s lie about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ – neither of which ever happened.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The only way this can be true is if conservatives know the Democrats are lying when they promise gun bans and confiscations on the campaign trail.


The irony, of course, is that conservatives are victims of their own success.

That right’s lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ are even more idiotic and ridiculous with a Supreme Court dominated by hyper-partisan conservative ideologues who will invalidate any Federal laws ‘banning’ firearms.

Indeed, in the coming years this Court will likely strike down state AWBs – so much for “states’ rights.”


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 10, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> So that's what the 2A means to a Dim?


That is what 2A was intended for all Americans. It has been altered, radically, over the years, as arms became more deadly. If you are going to fight for the intention of 2A, fight for the original intention, all arms. If you are fighting for just guns, you are not fighting for the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  Democrats say 2A has continually been re-interpreted as arms become more deadly. What is being proposed, currently, is consistent of what has been done throughout history.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 10, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Are you on some sort of drugs?


I am interpreting the Constitution as written and listened to the far right that says they must have their guns without registration because the government will come and get them.
Jarlaxative, watch out, the government is coming for you first, They consider you a seditionist.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 10, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> You're the one terrified of an inanimate object, kid.


I fear nothing. I need no fricking gun to be safe. I use my intelligence to stay safe. Intelligence is the best weapon to keep you safe. Those without adequate intelligence, beg for bigger and more deadly guns.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I fear nothing. I need no fricking gun to be safe. I use my intelligence to stay safe. Intelligence is the best weapon to keep you safe. Those without adequate intelligence, beg for bigger and more deadly guns.


You are so full of shit that it is bubbling out your ears.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 10, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> You are so full of shit that it is bubbling out your ears.


Do you agree that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the ability of militias and the citizenry to possess all arms. They put no restrictions on some arms or guns only.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


I don't know anyone who wants to ban all guns.  Do you have some names?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 10, 2021)

bodecea said:


> I don't know anyone who wants to ban all guns.  Do you have some names?


The voices in his head.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

bodecea said:


> I don't know anyone who wants to ban all guns.  Do you have some names?



Why the qualifier "all"?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> That is a very real aspect to our judicial system, unfortunately. A bigger problem is those who should go to jail do not. Our judicial system favors people with money over those who do not have money. Another imperfect system within government but still one of the best judicial systems in the world. We are much better with an imperfect judicial system than no judicial system at all. Just like we are better off with arms regulations than no arms regulations.


Fact remains- you have no problem with a few innocent people going to jail so long as all the guilty ones do.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 10, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The irony, of course, is that conservatives are victims of their own success.


Why do Democrats lie about wanting to ban and confiscate guns?


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I am interpreting the Constitution as written


Then I can have any arms, weapons, guns, and knives I want so shut up already.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 10, 2021)

*American English *_*--> British (international) English*_
A well regulated militia _--> Well-kept armed forces_
being necessary_ --> being of a necessity_
to the security _--> for the safety and defence_
of a free state, _--> of a general state of freedom rather than slavery_
the right of the people, _--> the universal human right_
to keep _--> to possess_
and bear _--> and to carry (or "wear," as clothes or garments)_
Arms, _--> guns, ammunition, knives, stones, swords, bows and arrows and other weapons,_
shall not be infringed. --> _shall not be violated, limited, or restricted in any way, shape, or form._


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Do you agree that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the ability of militias and the citizenry to possess all arms. They put no restrictions on some arms or guns only.



At the moment of the Constitution's ratification (June 21st, 1788) I would argue the citizen's "right" to possess and use the weapons of open warfare had been surrendered / conferred to Congress through the Warmaking clauses of Section 8 . . .  

It goes without saying (but I guess I must) such a right to those arms certainly was not granted to the citizen by the 2nd Amendment which came into force some three years five months after the Constitution was ratified (December 15, 1791).

Under the Supreme Court's holdings on the right to arms _*as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment*_, your theory has many fatal errors and no association with the law.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> *American English *_*--> British (international) English*_
> A well regulated militia _--> Well-kept armed forces_
> being necessary_ --> being of a necessity_
> to the security _--> for the safety and defence_
> ...



Even better is the Supreme Court telling us in boringly consistent terms, for going on 146 years, that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Parsing words that the right in no manner depends upon, is a useless endeavor that only emboldens those who try to exinguish the right.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> At the moment of the Constitution's ratification (June 21st, 1788) I would argue the citizen's "right" to possess and use the weapons of open warfare had been surrendered / conferred to Congress through the Warmaking clauses of Section 8 . . .


Which is why Congress felt it necessary to RESTORE that right to the people by proposing it as Article the Fourth in the original Bill of Rights, of which Article the First has never yet been ratified by 3/4 the state legislatures, but Article the Second became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment when it was ratified by the legislature of the State of Michigan in 1992.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Which is why Congress felt it necessary to RESTORE that right to the people



There was no rights restoration; the people never conferred any power over the personal arms of the private citizen to the federal government.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> There was no rights restoration;


You're in naked denial of the Constitution, to say that an Amendment to restore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms was properly proposed by Consgress and ratified by the States, and yet no restoration of that right ever took place.

You are giving unchecked power to liberal activist judges to legislate from the bench, twist and distort the law and constitution however they like and wrench our arms out of their sockets on the rack, however it pleases them to deny and disparage our rights, in spite of the letter of the law of the constitution, which holds that we as people have the universal right to keep and bear firearms, ammunition, guns, knives, sticks and stones, bows and arrows, other weapons.


Abatis said:


> the people never conferred any power over the personal arms of the private citizen to the federal government.


No they did not. However, dishonest Congressmen have in fact usurped that power to enact and enforce aggressive gun control legislation to register and confiscate at will any guns in the hands of private citizens.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Even better is the Supreme Court telling us in boringly consistent terms, for going on 146 years, that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.


If the right to keep and bear Arms --- that is, to carry and possess firearms, ammunition, guns, knives, swords, sticks and stones, bows and arrows, and other weapons --- is pre-existing and unalienable, then why do the judicial and executive branches of government insist on depriving us of that right, and registering, seizing, and confiscating our weapons, under medieval notions of mental health and other machinations of service of process in court?

And I certain do believe that the right to bear arms is pre-existing and unalienable, not dependent on the Constitution for its existence, but when a government exists, the government needs to be explicitly checked and restrained in no uncertain terms from violating our pre-existing and unalienable rights.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> You're in naked denial of the Constitution, to say that an Amendment to restore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms was properly proposed by Consgress and ratified by the States, and yet no restoration of that right ever took place.



I see he word "restoration" and I take that to mean the people had relinquished the right or had somehow lost the right by the ratification of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment was the legal mechanism to regain, or even worse, to grant or 'give back' the people the right to arms.

If that is what you mean by "restoration", that is wrong.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> If the right to keep and bear Arms --- that is, to carry and possess firearms, ammunition, guns, knives, swords, sticks and stones, bows and arrows, and other weapons --- is pre-existing and unalienable, then why do the judicial and executive branches of government insist on depriving us of that right, and registering, seizing, and confiscating our weapons, under medieval notions of mental health and other machinations of service of process in court?



Because no right is absolute in an ordered society.



justinacolmena said:


> And I certain do believe that the right to bear arms is pre-existing and unalienable, not dependent on the Constitution for its existence, but when a government exists, the government needs to be explicitly checked and restrained in no uncertain terms from violating our pre-existing and unalienable rights.



I agree as a matter of foundational constitutional philosophy, but the real-life problem was the government was off the constitutional rails for 66 years with the lower federal courts standing on the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment did not protect an individual right of the citizen. 

From 1942 the lower federal courts held the 2nd Amendment only protected either a citizen's right to bear arms only when one was serving as a member of the militia or the right was only a right of states to form and control their militias, free of federal government interference.

SCOTUS, for whatever reason refused to hear cases challenging those bullshit theories until _Heller_, so for 66 years those collective right interpretations held sway and we have not dug our way out from under them yet.

You can pontificate all you what on those high-minded _what-it-should-be_'s, but there are still jurisdictions where gun conrol laws are in force, sustained by relying on collective right court holdings.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do Democrats lie about wanting to ban and confiscate guns?


The right’s lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ were always nothing more than partisan fearmongering; that conservatives continue to propagate those lies with the Supreme Court’s overwhelming majority of justices hostile to firearm regulations make those lies just as ridiculous as they are dishonest.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 11, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The right’s lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ were always nothing more than partisan fearmongering; that conservatives continue to propagate those lies with the Supreme Court’s overwhelming majority of justices hostile to firearm regulations make those lies just as ridiculous as they are dishonest.



But until your imagined, partisan fearmongering about SCOTUS' hostility to firearms regulations is realized, your criticism of gun rights supporters calling out leftist's calls for gun bans is dishonest and ridiculous. 

Until SCOTUS hands down an emphatic decision that invalidates gun bans in force now and forecloses all possible avenues for any ban on any type of firearms in common use to be enacted in the future, gun right's supporters calling out leftist's calls for gun bans is NOT dishonest or ridiculous. 

The easiest way for leftist gun banners to stop hearing gun rights supporters complaining about proposed gun bans, is for you to stop proposing banning guns!

Reminds me of the old joke about a guy that goes to the doctor and complains that whenever he sticks a fork in his eye it hurts . . .  The doctor's remedy?  He tells the guy to stop doing that.

Really, it's that easy.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 12, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The right’s lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ were always nothing more than partisan fearmongering;


Based on the campaign promises by the Democrats.
Did the Democrats lie about their promise to ban/confiscate guns?


----------



## PaulF (Dec 12, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world,* to develop common sense gun regulations*  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA


I used to think it was possible to do this.  I no longer do.  Every time politicians talk about gun control, they focus entirely on restricting the rights of legal gun owners.  I don't see that changing anytime soon, so I will continue to vote accordingly.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 12, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
> Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.
> 
> We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations  to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA



You cannot use intelligence and gun owners in the same sentence. Its an oxymoron. 

It's countries that have gun control that live in the real world.  America is a left over from the wild west days.  Very little intelligence circulating if they want guns to justify the slaughter of  kids every week. Some stupid idiots even blame democrats for it.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 12, 2021)

240 years, nobody has banned guns.

Unless you count black Americans.


----------



## PaulF (Dec 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> *You cannot use intelligence and gun owners in the same sentence. Its an oxymoron.*
> 
> It's countries that have gun control that live in the real world.  America is a left over from the wild west days.  Very little intelligence circulating if they want guns to justify the slaughter of  kids every week. Some stupid idiots even blame democrats for it.


I think the same can be said for people who think law-abiding gun owners are the problem.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You cannot use intelligence and gun owners in the same sentence. Its an oxymoron.


You're a complete idiot.  You know nothing about the place, but love the headlines.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 12, 2021)

PaulF said:


> I think the same can be said for people who think law-abiding gun owners are the problem.



Its not about law abiding.  It's about guns getting into the hands of  the wrong people because the laws are so slack. 
It won't be long before McDonald's will give you a pistol as an upgrade to your big Mac. 
But none of you care about slaughtered kids.  You regard that as collateral damage as a right to own a gun you never use.


----------



## Hossfly (Dec 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Its not about law abiding.  It's about guns getting into the hands of  the wrong people because the laws are so slack.
> It won't be long before McDonald's will give you a pistol as an upgrade to your big Mac.
> But none of you care about slaughtered kids.  You regard that as collateral damage as a right to own a gun you never use.



The laws aren't slack. The people who are supposed to administer the law are criminally slack. A good mayor, a good D.A. and a good police chief could clean up cities like Chicago and New York in a month. Lacking that the police have their hands tied.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 12, 2021)

Hossfly said:


> The laws aren't slack. The people who are supposed to administer the law are criminally slack. A good mayor, a good D.A. and a good police chief could clean up cities like Chicago and New York in a month. Lacking that the police have their hands tied.



Piss off you moron.  There are too many guns circulating and you know it.  
You all keep an arsenal because you can.  So do they.  
How would you like it the mayor etc tried restrictions on you?  Never thought if that? Of course not. That's for someone else.


----------



## Hossfly (Dec 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Piss off you moron.  There are too many guns circulating and you know it.
> You all keep an arsenal because you can.  So do they.
> How would you like it the mayor etc tried restrictions on you?  Never thought if that? Of course not. That's for someone else.


You're delusional, Bunky.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 12, 2021)

Hossfly said:


> You're delusional, Bunky.



No I'm not.  Its the pathetic justifications you gave for all the unnecessary guns in society.  You're gun crazy as if life can't go on without them. You bellow about how it gives you some sort of freedom.  Bullshit.  That's democracy and Republican who hate America want to destroy that with capitol riots.  
Who's delusional now boy?


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 13, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I see he word "restoration" and I take that to mean the people had relinquished the right


You cannot ever "relinquish" a right which is unalienable. That's a bar problem in court.
Are you required to make a confession that you somehow "lost" your gun rights if you (or your lawyer) request to have your rights "restored" in court? That isn't the right interpretation.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No I'm not. Its the pathetic justifications you gave for all the unnecessary guns in society. You're gun crazy as if life can't go on without them. You bellow about how it gives you some sort of freedom. Bullshit. That's democracy and Republican who hate America want to destroy that with capitol riots.
> Who's delusional now boy?


What if I were a Muslim, and I felt your fists were unnecessary, and that your hands needed to be cut off for stealing my guns?


----------



## Abatis (Dec 13, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> You cannot ever "relinquish" a right which is unalienable. That's a bar problem in court.
> Are you required to make a confession that you somehow "lost" your gun rights if you (or your lawyer) request to have your rights "restored" in court? That isn't the right interpretation.



No shit . . .   "Restoration" is _*your*_ word, I'm criticizing *your* use of "restoration" in this context, which was the enactment of the 2nd Amendment in 1791 and the actual action of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment only recognized and secured a pre-existing right to possess and use the arms of a militiaman, not the arms of the national army.  The 'right' of the private citizen to possess and use the arms of open, indiscriminate warfare *WAS *_alienable_ and it was conferred to Congress through Article I, §8, cl's. 11, 12, 13 & 14. 

Let's recap how we got where we are now, showing the incongruous even schizophrenic path you took . . . Beginning with my post 304 to ElmerMudd you quoted and replied to in 306:





------------------



-----------------




-----------------------




----------------------




--------------------------




I find it frustrating to try to "debate" a person who is incapable of maintaining continuity in their argument.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 13, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court has long rejected insurrectionist dogma; that there is no right of the people to form a ‘militia’ absent government authorization, that there is no right of the people to possess weapons identical to that of the Federal government, and there is no right of the people to take up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.


That is completely wrong and made up bullshit.  You can simply read The Federalist Papers and you would be proved wrong 400 times minimum.  You haven't read any of that.  That's why you don't know shit and you're wrong.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 13, 2021)

bodecea said:


> I don't know anyone who wants to ban all guns.  Do you have some names?


Notice how they change the language on us.

Now it's "all guns"....

FUCK YOU


----------



## Meister (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You cannot use intelligence and gun owners in the same sentence. Its an oxymoron.
> 
> It's countries that have gun control that live in the real world.  America is a left over from the wild west days.  Very little intelligence circulating if they want guns to justify the slaughter of  kids every week. Some stupid idiots even blame democrats for it.


The "real world" as in Totalitarian, and Authoritarian governments, Colon?  You fools are the low intellect buffoons
who bow down to your governments.  We're not there yet and hopefully won't be.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No I'm not.  Its the pathetic justifications you gave for all the unnecessary guns in society.  You're gun crazy as if life can't go on without them. You bellow about how it gives you some sort of freedom.  Bullshit.  That's democracy and Republican who hate America want to destroy that with capitol riots.
> Who's delusional now boy?



So WTF is an unnecessary gun?  Do you think people buy guns and never use them?  

Life would go on if there was no longer house insurance, but having house insurance gives you peace of mind.  Life would go on without auto insurance, but having insurance just in case is the smartest thing you can buy.  

Guns are insurance if somebody breaks into your home or tries to attack you on the street.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 240 years, nobody has banned guns.
> 
> Unless you count black Americans.





Colin norris said:


> Its not about law abiding. It's about guns getting into the hands of the wrong people because the laws are so slack.



It's partly about the laws being slack, but more about liberal Mayors and prosecutors that won't enforce them like in Chicago or many parts of CA.  There is no possible way to take guns from bad people only, and taking arms away from good people would only give us a disarmed society where only the criminals and police have the guns. 

Nobody banned guns because of our Constitution and conservative judges.  If they could ban them, they would.  What they can do in the meantime is make it so miserable and expensive to get guns that a lot of people won't deal with it.  Read Dementia's plans for our guns when he was running for office.  If you don't want to take the time to learn something, just ask and I'll tell you some of what he wanted to do to stop gun ownership in this country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You cannot use intelligence and gun owners in the same sentence. Its an oxymoron.
> 
> It's countries that have gun control that live in the real world.  America is a left over from the wild west days.  Very little intelligence circulating if they want guns to justify the slaughter of  kids every week. Some stupid idiots even blame democrats for it.



Yes, and why not blame Democrats?  They are the problem.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Piss off you moron.  There are too many guns circulating and you know it.
> You all keep an arsenal because you can.  So do they.
> How would you like it the mayor etc tried restrictions on you?  Never thought if that? Of course not. That's for someone else.




No, there aren't....the democrat party keeps releasing violent, repeat gun offenders......often not charging them even when caught shooting at people....that is the problem...not gun ownership.....

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

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


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

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

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


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

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

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

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


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

bodecea said:


> I don't know anyone who wants to ban all guns.  Do you have some names?



That is their ultimate goal.  Start with the so-called assault weapons, ban magazine size, and keep working their way right down to revolvers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I fear nothing. I need no fricking gun to be safe. I use my intelligence to stay safe. Intelligence is the best weapon to keep you safe. Those without adequate intelligence, beg for bigger and more deadly guns.



Let's see your intelligence if you're ever in a convenience store that's getting robbed, the thieves hit you over the head with the butt of their gun and take all your belongings.  What is your intelligence going to do for you then?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Its not about law abiding.  It's about guns getting into the hands of  the wrong people because the laws are so slack.


It is illegal for certain people to have firearms; if they buy or are in possession of one they commit a federal felony/
How is that "slack"?


Colin norris said:


> It won't be long before McDonald's will give you a pistol as an upgrade to your big Mac.
> But none of you care about slaughtered kids.  You regard that as collateral damage as a right to own a gun you never use.


You're a complete idiot.  You know nothing about the place, but love the headlines.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Piss off you moron.  There are too many guns circulating and you know it.


You're a complete idiot.  You know nothing about the place, but love the headlines.


Colin norris said:


> You all keep an arsenal because you can.  So do they.


Piss off you moron.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No I'm not.  Its the pathetic justifications you gave for all the unnecessary guns in society.  You're gun crazy as if life can't go on without them. You bellow about how it gives you some sort of freedom.  Bullshit.  That's democracy and Republican who hate America want to destroy that with capitol riots.


Piss off you moron.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Piss off you moron.  There are too many guns circulating and you know it.
> You all keep an arsenal because you can.  So do they.
> How would you like it the mayor etc tried restrictions on you?  Never thought if that? Of course not. That's for someone else.


I'm sorry...is that intended to make sense? If so...it failed completely.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> Scared immigrants will take their jobs. Scared they do not have the skills to compete in today's job market. Scared of the government . Scared they are not safe without guns. Scared of any people that do not look like them and come from the same culture are a threat. Scared the election was fixed. Scared of liberals. Scared the COVID vaccine will make them magnetic or some other horrible thing. Scared of something called the deep state. Scared of their own shadow. Scared of their children because too liberal.  I could write a book of your fears.



I could do the same.  Scared that we are ending the earth with our CO2, scared of law abiding citizens with guns. Scared of big phrama, scared of big tobacco.  Scared of wealthy people.  Scared of religion in our society.  Scared of Donald Trump.  Scared of losing social programs.  Scared of losing a cradle-to-grave government.  Scared they can't take care of themselves.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That is their ultimate goal.  Start with the so-called assault weapons, ban magazine size, and keep working their way right down to revolvers.




Yep....and the AR-15 is their trojan horse to get other guns......if we let them ban the AR-15, a typical, semi-automatic weapon...they can then come back and demand banning all other semi-automatic weapons, since they all work the same way...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yep....and the AR-15 is their trojan horse to get other guns......if we let them ban the AR-15, a typical, semi-automatic weapon...they can then come back and demand banning all other semi-automatic weapons, since they all work the same way...


Which, of course, is what they want to do.


----------



## PaulF (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Its not about law abiding.  It's about guns getting into the hands of  the wrong people because the laws are so slack.
> It won't be long before McDonald's will give you a pistol as an upgrade to your big Mac.
> But none of you care about slaughtered kids.  You regard that as collateral damage as a right to own a gun you never use.


I don't think the gun laws are particularly slack.  The real problem lies with lack of enforcement in that regard and even that varies from state to state.  Moreover, I don't think any gun owner doesn't "care about slaughtered kids."  I just don't think that's true.  Most people I know in the shooting community are heartbroken every time one of these horrible incidents happen.  That being said, I do think that most law-abiding gun owners are raising a legitimate point when they say that we will never fully eliminate guns from society, so taking guns away from us only empowers people who ignore the law to commit more crimes.  As for owning guns we never use, that is also not always true.  I shoot weekly.  I compete and I train other people in shooting.  It's one of my interests, along with history, collecting antique books, motorcycling, hunting, camping, learning languages, traveling abroad, etc...  It is true that I don't routinely shoot other people with my gun, if that's what you're referring to.  That's not why I own it and I certainly hope that I never find myself in that situation.  However, I always carry because guns are like parachutes, if you ever actually need one and don't have it, you probably won't need one again.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yep....and the AR-15 is their trojan horse to get other guns......if we let them ban the AR-15, a typical, semi-automatic weapon...they can then come back and demand banning all other semi-automatic weapons, since they all work the same way...



It's baby steps, baby steps with the people of that party.  I remember as a child when they wanted to ban lead in gasoline.  It's all they wanted so they claimed.  I remember when they wanted gays out of the closet.  It's all they wanted.  I remember when they just wanted to ban smoking in movie theaters.  

Fast forward to today and look at where their single concerns ended up.  They start with step A, and once they get it, proceed to step B, then C, then D.  Even now Congress has some defectors to Dementia's plan to ban all "assault" rifles, whatever the hell an assault rifle is.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

PaulF said:


> I don't think the gun laws are particularly slack. The real problem lies with lack of enforcement in that regard and even that varies from state to state. Moreover, I don't think any gun owner doesn't "care about slaughtered kids." I just don't think that's true. Most people I know in the shooting community are heartbroken every time one of these horrible incidents happen.



They don't think it's true either.  But the idea of such idiotic comments is an attempt to make you feel guilty in order to try and get you on their side.  Democrats have always thought they were masters of reverse psychology.  It never works because it's so transparent, but we don't tell them that. 

Not enforcing laws is part of it, but the fact of the matter gun laws are way to lenient in penalty is another.  It's a combination problem.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 13, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> What if I were a Muslim, and I felt your fists were unnecessary, and that your hands needed to be cut off for stealing my guns?



So what. You're getting desperate now injecting your islamphobia. 
I don't care what they do but get rid of  the unnecessary guns.





Jarlaxle said:


> I'm sorry...is that intended to make sense? If so...it failed completely.



Of course it wouldn't make sense to you of you addicted to guns. Most Americans are. 
You're problem is you don't like the truth bring revealed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I don't care what they do but get rid of  the *unnecessary guns.*


A term with no objexctive meaning.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 13, 2021)

Meister said:


> The "real world" as in Totalitarian, and Authoritarian governments, Colon?  You fools are the low intellect buffoons
> who bow down to your governments.  We're not there yet and hopefully won't be.



That's the real world ay? How would you know as you've never lived in it. 

So only republicans are high intellect. Interesting.  I hadn't noticed that. 

What do you expect to do with your guns as the Democrat government progresses towards authoritarianism? Revolution? 
Storm the  WH like the capital? 
You'll do nothing like all the other gun nut Rambos who think your guns will save the country from anything. 
You've had your chances and done nothing.  Home of the brave my arse. Gutless wimps more like it. 
Who's the buffoon now sucker?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> That's the real world ay? How would you know as you've never lived in it.
> 
> So only republicans are high intellect. Interesting.  I hadn't noticed that.
> 
> ...


Piss off you moron.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yep....and the AR-15 is their trojan horse to get other guns......if we let them ban the AR-15, a typical, semi-automatic weapon...they can then come back and demand banning all other semi-automatic weapons, since they all work the same way...


The comments of a paranoid individual. Scared of everybody and everything. Everything in the world is out to get you. You end up creating your own reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> The comments of a paranoid individual. Scared of everybody and everything. Everything in the world is out to get you. You end up creating your own reality.


You say this like you don't know the Demcrats renew their screams for a ban on 'assault weapons' every time a white guy uses one to shoot up a bunch of people (preferably colored, but white kids are OK too).


----------



## Meister (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> That's the real world ay? How would you know as you've never lived in it.
> 
> So only republicans are high intellect. Interesting.  I hadn't noticed that.
> 
> ...


You are still the low intellect buffoon, Colon, along with your ilk who thinks like you do.
Guns save or deter violence more often than you could imagine.  But, that doesn't
fit the mantra of the buffoons.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 13, 2021)

Meister said:


> You are still the low intellect buffoon, Colon, along with your ilk who thinks like you do.
> Guns save or deter violence more often than you could imagine.  But, that doesn't
> fit the mantra of the buffoons.



Ask those  parents of those slaughtered kids how guns protected their kids.  Every week some nut kills kids in schools and you STILL bleat that pathetic excuse. 

As for calling me silly names, you haven't got the guts to show yours. Home of  the brave my arse. You're nothing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Ask those  parents of those slaughtered kids how guns protected their kids.


^^^
Fallacy:  _argumentum ad passiones_
Rational, reasoned are not swayed by such things.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> As for calling me silly names, you haven't got the guts to show yours. Home of  the brave my arse. You're nothing.


Piss off you moron.


----------



## Meister (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Ask those  parents of those slaughtered kids how guns protected their kids.  Every week some nut kills kids in schools and you STILL bleat that pathetic excuse.
> 
> As for calling me silly names, you haven't got the guts to show yours. Home of  the brave my arse. You're nothing.


You're just proving what a buffoon you really are by giving out your "real name".
I truly feel sorry for the innocent and their family and friends, it is a shame.
Having said that, there are a lot more who's lives were saved or an assault deterred because of a gun.

Now run along and go kiss your master's feet, Colon.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Ask those  parents of those slaughtered kids how guns protected their kids.  Every week some nut kills kids in schools and you STILL bleat that pathetic excuse.
> 
> As for calling me silly names, you haven't got the guts to show yours. Home of  the brave my arse. You're nothing.



Every week some nut is killing kids in school?  What's wrong with the news I read.  I don't see that happening nearly every week.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Dec 13, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> The comments of a paranoid individual. Scared of everybody and everything. Everything in the world is out to get you. You end up creating your own reality.



You have a lot of room to talk.  You're scared that people with guns are out to get you.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 13, 2021)

Meister said:


> OH, you might be right, although, there is a boat load of people who
> want to ban the ammunition for those legal guns.


OnlyOnly on Fox!!


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 13, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Every week some nut is killing kids in school?  What's wrong with the news I read.  I don't see that happening nearly every week.


That would beThe GOP propaganda network of course....


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> addicted to guns


Get off the drugs. Now. Clean and sober people need GUNS to enforce healthier choices in life.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> That's the real world ay? How would you know as you've never lived in it.
> 
> So only republicans are high intellect. Interesting.  I hadn't noticed that.
> 
> ...


What do you consider a “necessary “ gun?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 13, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> The comments of a paranoid individual. Scared of everybody and everything. Everything in the world is out to get you. You end up creating your own reality.


Well the anti-gunners started out by banning “Saturday night specials”. Inexpensive pistols used by criminals and the poor.  That wasn’t enough, so they went after large capacity magazines and semi-auto rifles. Now they are after ‘assault weapons”. A term that is so nebulous that it can describe any magazine fed shotgun or rifle.  The anti-gunners have a track record.  Gunners are simply being wise to be suspicious of them.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 14, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> What do you consider a “necessary “ gun?


A pop gun.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 14, 2021)

Meister said:


> You're just proving what a buffoon you really are by giving out your "real name".
> I truly feel sorry for the innocent and their family and friends, it is a shame.
> Having said that, there are a lot more who's lives were saved or an assault deterred because of a gun.
> 
> Now run along and go kiss your master's feet, Colon.



You've got no guts because you might get a slap if soneone knew who you were. Not me comrade.  Bring it on. 
Home of the brave? Home of the gutless wimps like you.


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You've got no guts because you might get a slap if soneone knew who you were. Not me comrade.  Bring it on.
> Home of the brave? Home of the gutless wimps like you.


Okay, okay, Colon.  My name is Eyure Mibych.  Now what?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You've got no guts because you might get a slap if soneone knew who you were. Not me comrade.  Bring it on.
> Home of the brave? Home of the gutless wimps like you.


Piss off you moron.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 14, 2021)

Meister said:


> Okay, okay, Colon.  My name is Eyure Mibych.  Now what?



You're not worth a cup of warm snot let alone a reply.  Stick  with your bible..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You're not worth a cup of warm snot let alone a reply.  Stick  with your bible..


Piss off you moron.


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You're not worth a cup of warm snot let alone a reply.  Stick  with your bible..


I will always stick with the Bible, sonny.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 15, 2021)

Meister said:


> I will always stick with the Bible, sonny.



You do that just like all the other godbotherers did when they said God will protect them from the virus.  400000 Jesus junkies bit the dust.  Where's your filthy lying God now? 
That bible really has made a difference to society.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You do that just like all the other godbotherers did when they said God will protect them from the virus.  400000 Jesus junkies bit the dust.  Where's your filthy lying God now?
> That bible really has made a difference to society.


Piss off you moron.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Dec 15, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Piss off you moron.


I think m14 is making a personal attack on Colin.  You hypocritical piece of crap.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 15, 2021)

ElmerMudd said:


> I think m14 is making a personal attack on Colin.  You hypocritical piece of crap.


If you look a little closer you'll see that M14 copied and pasted the personal attack Colin used in one of his posts.
If its OK for Colin to call someone a moron and tell them to piss off, its OK for someone to call him a moron and tell him to piss off.


----------



## Meister (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You do that just like all the other godbotherers did when they said God will protect them from the virus.  400000 Jesus junkies bit the dust.  Where's your filthy lying God now?
> That bible really has made a difference to society.


God didn't say anything about this virus.  And, I believe you just made up the rest of the shit, COLON, it's what you do best.....colon.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 15, 2021)

Meister said:


> God didn't say anything about this virus.  And, I believe you just made up the rest of the shit, COLON, it's what you do best.....colon.





Meister said:


> God didn't say anything about this virus.  And, I believe you just made up the rest of the shit, COLON, it's what you do best.....colon.



Approximately 60% of Americans believe in some silly God.  That's about 400000 who thought he would protect them 
It's not inventing anything.  It's fact. 
Where's your silly God now? 
How coincidental that the godbotherers never mention that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Approximately 60% of Americans believe in some silly God.  That's about 400000 who thought he would protect them
> It's not inventing anything.  It's fact.
> Where's your silly God now?
> How coincidental that the godbotherers never mention that?


Piss off you moron.


----------



## Meister (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Approximately 60% of Americans believe in some silly God.  That's about 400000 who thought he would protect them
> It's not inventing anything.  It's fact.
> Where's your silly God now?
> How coincidental that the godbotherers never mention that?


You don't know how it works, do you?  I can't and won't even try to fix your stupidity.
Read the Bible and maybe then you will understand.  But, not sure if you can read.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 15, 2021)

Meister said:


> You don't know how it works, do you?  I can't and won't even try to fix your stupidity.
> Read the Bible and maybe then you will understand.  But, not sure if you can read.


I know exactly how it works and in the case of your Jesus junkie buddies dying, it clearly didn't work.  
You can read that until the sun rises in the West and you will get nothing from it.
You have been conned and are delusional. When you inherit your religion obviously the stupidity is also.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I know exactly how it works and in the case of your Jesus junkie buddies dying, it clearly didn't work.
> You can read that until the sun rises in the West and you will get nothing from it.
> You have been conned and are delusional. When you inherit your religion obviously the stupidity is also.


Piss off you moron.


----------



## Meister (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I know exactly how it works and in the case of your Jesus junkie buddies dying, it clearly didn't work.
> You can read that until the sun rises in the West and you will get nothing from it.
> You have been conned and are delusional. When you inherit your religion obviously the stupidity is also.


No, no you don't know the Bible, and you don't know the Lord.

You wouldn't say what you have if you did.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 15, 2021)

Meister said:


> No, no you don't know the Bible, and you don't know the Lord.
> 
> You wouldn't say what you have if you did.



If you say you know God and how he thinks, you are a liar.  You have never interacted with your silly ghost and you know it. 
You read an old book and suddenly you have unique insights into how some never seen celestial wizard operates and expect rational human being to believe you.  You're  delusional.  
The sad part is you teach those  lies to kids, threaten them with hell unless they obey him but then say he loves them.  
You people are barking mad.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> If you say you know God and how he thinks, you are a liar.  You have never interacted with your silly ghost and you know it.
> You read an old book and suddenly you have unique insights into how some never seen celestial wizard operates and expect rational human being to believe you.  You're  delusional.
> The sad part is you teach those  lies to kids, threaten them with hell unless they obey him but then say he loves them.
> You people are barking mad.


Piss off you moron.


----------



## Meister (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> If you say you know God and how he thinks, you are a liar.  You have never interacted with your silly ghost and you know it.
> You read an old book and suddenly you have unique insights into how some never seen celestial wizard operates and expect rational human being to believe you.  You're  delusional.
> The sad part is you teach those  lies to kids, threaten them with hell unless they obey him but then say he loves them.
> You people are barking mad.


Colon, you have a lot of yarns in your post with no facts.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 15, 2021)

Meister said:


> Colon, you have a lot of yarns in your post with no facts.



I see your concentrating on my name as a childish rebuttal. Is that the best you've got? 
Here's a fact.  You have bern conned by the God shit and can't see it.  A grown human being still believes in some supernatural power who controls everything.  I've seen less nuts in an almond orchard.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I see your concentrating on my name as a childish rebuttal. Is that the best you've got?
> Here's a fact.  You have bern conned by the God shit and can't see it.  A grown human being still believes in some supernatural power who controls everything.  I've seen less nuts in an almond orchard.


Piss off you moron.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 15, 2021)

There's like a dozen people who want to take yer guns.

Even the people who want to ban assault style guns don't want to take guns. They want to ban the sale of new guns.

It's like you guys fantasize about the government taking yer guns.

You get a gun boner over it.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 15, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> There's like a dozen people who want to take yer guns.
> 
> Even the people who want to ban assault style guns don't want to take guns. They want to ban the sale of new guns.


Street hookers with old-guard Sinaloa cártel gang protection from a few well-heeled and well-armed old fogies who don't want young folks to have guns.


Otis Mayfield said:


> It's like you guys fantasize about the government taking yer guns.
> 
> You get a gun boner over it.


It's that street hooker again. And she doesn't want to be caught in possession of your guns herself either. CJNG, los Zetas, is how the old guard keeps the young folks under their thumb with crime-family-style gun control from Mexico throughout the United States.


----------

