# Second time I must commend the Biden administration today...



## Missourian (Jul 22, 2021)

First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 22, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html


What other gun control laws do you like?  All of them, I presume.


----------



## Missourian (Jul 22, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> What other gun control laws do you like? All of them, I presume.


The kind that target criminals and not law abiding gun owners.


----------



## Ordinary Guy (Jul 22, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html


just looks good on paper, won't change anything


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 22, 2021)

Missourian said:


> The kind that target criminals and not law abiding gun owners.


Just checking; you are a gun controller.  I was just wanting to be sure.


----------



## Missourian (Jul 23, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Just checking; you are a gun controller.  I was just wanting to be sure.


That is correct.   I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Don't you?  Doesn't every law abiding citizen?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 23, 2021)

Is old Joe going to start taking credit for laws that are already on the books? Pathetic.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2021)

Missourian said:


> That is correct.   I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Don't you?  Doesn't every law abiding citizen?


Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own constitution.  The Constitution of the United States of America says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It ends it right there - the period after shall not be infringed.  There's no comma or semi-colon, there's no "but" or "except".

So, like I said, you can definitely believe that the government should decide who owns guns and who does not, ignoring that for the first 145 years of our nation the Federal Government understood that it could not regulate gun ownership.  Just quit pretending to support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution; you've already proven that you support neither.

Also, since you've agreed with Nancy Pelosi and the Squad that the Government is not bound by the Constitution but, instead, can do whatever you, Nancy, and the Squad want it to do, just don't complain when you get outvoted by the Squad and Nancy and they do far more stuff you wish they hadn't than they do enforcing your authoritarianism.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 25, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html



this will just turn into targeting gun stores…..stores that follow federal laws but criminals ignore.  When they are locking up majority black females, a large number of whom are the straw buyers for gangs, then the cry of racism will start


----------



## Missourian (Jul 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> this will just turn into targeting gun stores…..stores that follow federal laws but criminals ignore.  When they are locking up majority black females, a large number of whom are the straw buyers for gangs, then the cry of racism will start


I hope you are wrong.

I can't see how the shop owners can be held responsible for straw purchasers.


----------



## Peace (Jul 25, 2021)

Going after Straw Purchase has been going on for a long time and the penalty should be severe on the crime committed after the Straw Purchase and then you will see people take the law seriously…


----------



## Missourian (Jul 25, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own constitution.  The Constitution of the United States of America says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It ends it right there - the period after shall not be infringed.  There's no comma or semi-colon, there's no "but" or "except".
> 
> So, like I said, you can definitely believe that the government should decide who owns guns and who does not, ignoring that for the first 145 years of our nation the Federal Government understood that it could not regulate gun ownership.  Just quit pretending to support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution; you've already proven that you support neither.
> 
> Also, since you've agreed with Nancy Pelosi and the Squad that the Government is not bound by the Constitution but, instead, can do whatever you, Nancy, and the Squad want it to do, just don't complain when you get outvoted by the Squad and Nancy and they do far more stuff you wish they hadn't than they do enforcing your authoritarianism.


I agree that those that have proven that they no regard for felony laws may have also proven they cannot be trusted to be law abiding gun owners.


----------



## Missourian (Jul 25, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> Going after Straw Purchase has been going on for a long time...


Agreed... but it has been treated mostly as a slap on the wrist.  I'm hoping with this initiative we'll see stiffer penalties.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 26, 2021)

Missourian said:


> I hope you are wrong.
> 
> I can't see how the shop owners can be held responsible for straw purchasers.




You fail to think like an anti-gunner......the gun shops already do the required background checks, but they are still blamed for gangs in chicago using guns........this task force is simply the opening step into a crackdown on gun stores....they will use illegal straw buyers as a reason to go after the gun stores.....this is the fig leaf....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 26, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> Going after Straw Purchase has been going on for a long time and the penalty should be severe on the crime committed after the Straw Purchase and then you will see people take the law seriously…




The anti-gunners don't care about straw buyers...they can already catch them.....what drives them crazy are legal gun owners.  Legal gun owners own guns but don't use them for crime, so that means the left wing, anti-gunners can't arrest them and take their guns...so now they have to come up with creative ways to get to normal gun owners....the most direct way is to drive gun stores out of business so that the mere act of buying a gun is more expensive, time consuming and difficult....

As to Straw Purchasers?   Here is how they are usually dealt with...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

*Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.*
*
--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive. In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Read more at: **http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425452/straw-purchasing-america-needs-to-prosecute-it*


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 26, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> What other gun control laws do you like?  All of them, I presume.


The slippery slope argument is BS. If we implement sane background checks to weed out psychos, that does not mean we're coming to take your popgun tomorrow.

Y'all resistance to ANY reform of gun policy has cost a lot of lives... not unlike your resistance to COVID vaccination. Apparently the QOP is the Party of Needless Death.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The anti-gunners don't care about straw buyers...they can already catch them.....what drives them crazy are legal gun owners.  Legal gun owners own guns but don't use them for crime, so that means the left wing, anti-gunners can't arrest them and take their guns...so now they have to come up with creative ways to get to normal gun owners....the most direct way is to drive gun stores out of business so that the mere act of buying a gun is more expensive, time consuming and difficult....
> 
> As to Straw Purchasers?   Here is how they are usually dealt with...
> 
> ...


This very typical delusional white-right screed is pure bulldooky. You claim to know what "the Left" is thinking. You do not.

But I know what you're thinking, and why you want those guns... and it ain't about protecting your castle from criminals, is it...


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You fail to think like an anti-gunner......the gun shops already do the required background checks, but they are still blamed for gangs in chicago using guns........this task force is simply the opening step into a crackdown on gun stores....they will use illegal straw buyers as a reason to go after the gun stores.....this is the fig leaf....


You're paranoid, like nearly all RepubliQans today.

By your logic if we impose a speed limit of 55, it's just a step toward lowering it to 5. Slippery slope, right? Nonsense.

Background checks have too many loopholes. There are not provisions for stopping people who are obviously unhinged (cf. Adam Lanza). And really why do you need huge magazines, automatic weapons, and such? For hunting? Yeah right, for hunting Democrats, elected officials, blacks, immigrants, Muslims, gays... right?

Don't think we don't know what you're up to. And don't think you won't run into a brick wall.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 26, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own constitution.  The Constitution of the United States of America says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It ends it right there - the period after shall not be infringed.  There's no comma or semi-colon, there's no "but" or "except".
> 
> So, like I said, you can definitely believe that the government should decide who owns guns and who does not, ignoring that for the first 145 years of our nation the Federal Government understood that it could not regulate gun ownership.  Just quit pretending to support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution; you've already proven that you support neither.
> 
> Also, since you've agreed with Nancy Pelosi and the Squad that the Government is not bound by the Constitution but, instead, can do whatever you, Nancy, and the Squad want it to do, just don't complain when you get outvoted by the Squad and Nancy and they do far more stuff you wish they hadn't than they do enforcing your authoritarianism.


Ooooh the Squad and Nancy that sure is scary! No, actually it's political hyperbole, like your entire post.

They don't care about the Constitution? What I don't care about is your white-right NRA-twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And I know you do not want guns to protect freedom, but to shoot Democrats, etc. Don't front.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 26, 2021)

whitehall said:


> Is old Joe going to start taking credit for laws that are already on the books? Pathetic.


Are you white-rights ever going to come up with a cogent political argument? Or will it just be endless cliches, rhetoric, lies and Q fantasies which is currently all y'all are capable of?


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 26, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Just checking; you are a gun controller.  I was just wanting to be sure.


Just checking: you are an NRA dupe, and I am quite sure. "Gun controller", lol. Yeah, I'm also an automobile controller, as I advocate that we not drive on the sidewalk, though I guess to you white-rights that is an infringement on your freedom, the damned govt telling you what to do! And never mind who gets killed, right?

Too bad nobody controlled Adam Lanza.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 26, 2021)

Missourian said:


> That is correct.   I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Don't you?  Doesn't every law abiding citizen?



Criminals don't respect gun laws.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> The slippery slope argument is BS. If we implement sane background checks to weed out psychos, that does not mean we're coming to take your popgun tomorrow.
> 
> Y'all resistance to ANY reform of gun policy has cost a lot of lives... not unlike your resistance to COVID vaccination. Apparently the QOP is the Party of Needless Death.


How many background checks do we need, exactly?
We have over 20K gun laws in this country. How many more do we need?


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Just checking: you are an NRA dupe, and I am quite sure. "Gun controller", lol. Yeah, I'm also an automobile controller, as I advocate that we not drive on the sidewalk, though I guess to you white-rights that is an infringement on your freedom, the damned govt telling you what to do! And never mind who gets killed, right?
> 
> Too bad nobody controlled Adam Lanza.


Nobody gives a shit about the NRA anymore, except you partisan dumbfucks who havent got the updated rhetoric.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> The slippery slope argument is BS. If we implement sane background checks to weed out psychos, that does not mean we're coming to take your popgun tomorrow.
> 
> Y'all resistance to ANY reform of gun policy has cost a lot of lives... not unlike your resistance to COVID vaccination. Apparently the QOP is the Party of Needless Death.




You are an idiot...we have background checks on all purchases at gun stores....and the gangs and other criminals use straw buyers, people with clean records, to buy their guns for them....or they steal the guns.......

We have all the gun laws we need, doofus....what we don't have?    A way to keep the democrat party from releasing the repeat gun offenders who do almost 95% of all the gun crime and murder...

You don't care about actual gun crime and murder, because the actual solution to that problem has nothing to do with banning and confiscating guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> You're paranoid, like nearly all RepubliQans today.
> 
> By your logic if we impose a speed limit of 55, it's just a step toward lowering it to 5. Slippery slope, right? Nonsense.
> 
> ...




Background checks have zero loopholes......you dumb shit...if you are a felon, you can't guy or own a gun...if you are adjudicated dangerously mentally ill, you can't buy or own a gun...no loophole, you dumb ass....

The problem with guns?  The democrat party....they keep releasing the violent criminals who use guns for crime and murder....that is the fucking problem...not background checks.

Dipshit......Adam Lanza committed murder and stole his guns...are you this stupid in real life or just when you post...

Shit head....the only one who used a rifle to hunt politicians was the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren supporter who tried to murder the republican baseball team....you dumb ass...

Again, are this this stupid in real life or just when you post?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Just checking: you are an NRA dupe, and I am quite sure. "Gun controller", lol. Yeah, I'm also an automobile controller, as I advocate that we not drive on the sidewalk, though I guess to you white-rights that is an infringement on your freedom, the damned govt telling you what to do! And never mind who gets killed, right?
> 
> Too bad nobody controlled Adam Lanza.




Again....you ignorant moron....

Adam Lanza committed murder and stole his guns..........he did not go through a background check because he murdered the owner of the guns and stole them....you idiot......what part of that is so hard for you to understand?

Hey, genius......is murder against the law?  Do you want to create a law that says you can't murder people? 

You really are stupid.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 26, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Nobody gives a shit about the NRA anymore, except you partisan dumbfucks who havent got the updated rhetoric.




Shhhhhh.........Don't tell them about the NRA...there are too many other gun Rights groups who are actually effective...let them stay stuck on stupid.......

That's right..........keep focusing on the NRA....they are bad......


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> The slippery slope argument is BS. If we implement sane background checks to weed out psychos, that does not mean we're coming to take your popgun tomorrow.
> 
> Y'all resistance to ANY reform of gun policy has cost a lot of lives... not unlike your resistance to COVID vaccination. Apparently the QOP is the Party of Needless Death.



The worst cities for murder rates are democrat cities such as Chicago (democrat since 1931) 

Top 10 Cities With The Highest Murder Rate

1) Detroit === Democrat since 1962

2) New Orleans === Democrat since 1872

3) Newark === Democrat since 1953

4) St Louis === Democrat since 1949

5) Baltimore === Democrat since 1967

6) Birmingham === Democrat since 1975

7) Jackson === Democrat since 1945 and possibly back to 1917.

8) Cincinnati === Democrat since 1984, Charterite and Democrat since 1971.

9) Oakland === Democrat since 1977.

10) Batan Rouge Democrat for all but 16 years since 1872, Democrat since 2005

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!


----------



## miketx (Jul 26, 2021)

Mad Jack: "You can have my dildo when you pry it out of my old dead hands."


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2021)

Missourian said:


> I agree that those that have proven that they no regard for felony laws may have also proven they cannot be trusted to be law abiding gun owners.


And yet, you're clueless about the idea that those who don't care about the law don't care about being law abiding gun owners are completely willing to be law-not-abiding gun owners.  Gun control laws never stop the criminal; they only stop the law abiding.

When more and more people are on the lists to not buy guns, including vets and anyone who the government doesn't like, you're OK with that, right?

*For example, consider that 257,000 military veterans had their gun rights denied when their names were added into NICS because someone else handles their finances. Other decent citizens—such as medical marijuana users, and even those who have unpaid speeding tickets—are also at risk of having their rights denied under H.R. 4434 and S. 2135.*









						Jordan Stein: Don't 'Fix NICS,' Trash It
					

Jordan Stein: Anything short of repealing the National Instant Check System (NICS) is the wrong move, both practically and in principle.




					www.breitbart.com
				












						Veterans unfairly being banned from owning guns
					

Military veterans make up a large amount of the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), despite the fact they may not be a danger to society.




					popularmilitary.com
				




As soon as people like you tell the government it's OK for them to infringe on some people, then it is up to the government to determine upon which people they will infringe.

You show your ignorance and shallow-mindedness when you jump on the anti-gun bandwagon without considering the bigger picture costs to liberty.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You fail to think like an anti-gunner......the gun shops already do the required background checks, but they are still blamed for gangs in chicago using guns........this task force is simply the opening step into a crackdown on gun stores....they will use illegal straw buyers as a reason to go after the gun stores.....this is the fig leaf....


He doesn't at all fail to think like an anti-gunner.  He is an anti-gunner, therefore he thinks like an anti-gunner.

Biden is going after gun stores and will be doing what he can to trip them up on paperwork or other errors to shut them down.









						In Rambling Speech, Biden Targets Gun Stores As Way To Lower Crime
					

In a speech filled with numerous falsehoods, President Joe Biden announced a "zero tolerance" policy on gun stores that run afoul of ATF rules and regulations.




					bearingarms.com


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Just checking: you are an NRA dupe, and I am quite sure. "Gun controller", lol. Yeah, I'm also an automobile controller, as I advocate that we not drive on the sidewalk, though I guess to you white-rights that is an infringement on your freedom, the damned govt telling you what to do! And never mind who gets killed, right?
> 
> Too bad nobody controlled Adam Lanza.


False equivalency.  The correct association would be having a law against using a gun to murder people and having a law against using a car to murder people.  Your example equates owning a gun to how you use a car.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> This very typical delusional white-right screed is pure bulldooky. You claim to know what "the Left" is thinking. You do not.
> 
> But I know what you're thinking, and why you want those guns... and it ain't about protecting your castle from criminals, is it...


The left has made it very clear what they're thinking: Hell, yes, we're coming after your guns.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 26, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Ooooh the Squad and Nancy that sure is scary! No, actually it's political hyperbole, like your entire post.
> 
> They don't care about the Constitution? What I don't care about is your white-right NRA-twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And I know you do not want guns to protect freedom, but to shoot Democrats, etc. Don't front.


You know what's in my mind, huh?  You're an idiot.

I want guns to shoot Democrats?  Then why are so many new gun owners Democrats?  They want to shoot Democrats, too?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jul 27, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html


There shouldn't be any such thing as a straw purchaser because background checks are bullshit.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jul 27, 2021)

Missourian said:


> I agree that those that have proven that they no regard for felony laws may have also proven they cannot be trusted to be law abiding gun owners.


Should they be able to vote.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jul 27, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Ooooh the Squad and Nancy that sure is scary! No, actually it's political hyperbole, like your entire post.
> 
> They don't care about the Constitution? What I don't care about is your white-right NRA-twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And I know you do not want guns to protect freedom, but to shoot Democrats, etc. Don't front.


You want to ban guns so you can help the communists put people in concentration camps.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 28, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Should they be able to vote.



At least the Constitution allows that the right to vote can be taken for crimes; it doesn't say that about any thing else.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jul 28, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> At least the Constitution allows that the right to vote can be taken for crimes; it doesn't say that about any thing else.


Actually, any right can be stripped with "due process of the law".  But, none of these people have been found guilty of a crime.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jul 28, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Just checking: you are an NRA dupe, and I am quite sure. "Gun controller", lol. Yeah, I'm also an automobile controller, as I advocate that we not drive on the sidewalk, though I guess to you white-rights that is an infringement on your freedom, the damned govt telling you what to do! And never mind who gets killed, right?
> 
> Too bad nobody controlled Adam Lanza.


How should Lanza been controlled, exactly?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Actually, any right can be stripped with "due process of the law".  But, none of these people have been found guilty of a crime.


You don't have much understanding of the Constitution.  No right can be stripped, even with due process of the law.  Google Supremacy Clause.  

Are you suggesting that the government can convict without a trial or jury?  Or that, as long as there's a law passed, a person can be charged twice for the same crime?


----------



## MadChemist (Aug 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own constitution.  The Constitution of the United States of America says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It ends it right there - the period after shall not be infringed.  There's no comma or semi-colon, there's no "but" or "except".
> 
> So, like I said, you can definitely believe that the government should decide who owns guns and who does not, ignoring that for the first 145 years of our nation the Federal Government understood that it could not regulate gun ownership.  Just quit pretending to support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution; you've already proven that you support neither.
> 
> Also, since you've agreed with Nancy Pelosi and the Squad that the Government is not bound by the Constitution but, instead, can do whatever you, Nancy, and the Squad want it to do, just don't complain when you get outvoted by the Squad and Nancy and they do far more stuff you wish they hadn't than they do enforcing your authoritarianism.



I think you've got the wrong guy.

He is generally a right wing 2nd amendment person.  Do a little research and keep it in context.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html


The NRA and pro-gun people have been saying for years that the government should enforce current laws before creating new ones.
Glad the Democrats finally caught on.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> The slippery slope argument is BS. If we implement sane background checks to weed out psychos, that does not mean we're coming to take your popgun tomorrow.


Its not a slippery slope fallacy when we're already half-way down the hill.
1968:  Felons can't have guns
1993:  We need background checks to keep felons from buying guns
1998:  We need -universal- background checks to prevent criminals from buying guns
20xx:  We need universal universal registration to enforce universal background checks
No one wonders why the anti-gun loons want universal registration.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> This very typical delusional white-right screed is pure bulldooky. You claim to know what "the Left" is thinking. You do not.
> But I know what you're thinking, and why you want those guns... and it ain't about protecting your castle from criminals, is it...


Given the unnecessary and ineffective laws you (collectively) propose and support, you want to make it as hard as you can for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
How am I wrong?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> You're paranoid, like nearly all RepubliQans today.


When the anti-gun left goes on TV and talks about the guns they will ban, the necessary and ineffective restrictions they want to place on the law abiding, and how we need to repeal of the 2nd Amendment...
.... its not paranoia.


Sinajuavi said:


> Background checks have too many loopholes


Its is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law -- thus, there are no loopholes.


Sinajuavi said:


> There are not provisions for stopping people who are obviously unhinged (cf. Adam Lanza


Lanza murdered his mother and stole her gun.
No background check would have stopped him.


Sinajuavi said:


> .And really why do you need huge magazines, automatic weapons, and such?


The exercise of rights is not subject to the demonstration of a "need".


Sinajuavi said:


> Don't think we don't know what you're up to. And don't think you won't run into a brick wall.


What are we up to, and what brick wall will we run up against?

Are you anti-gun loons ever going to come up with a cogent political argument? Or will it just be endless cliches, rhetoric, lies and fantasies which is currently all y'all are capable of?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> They don't care about the Constitution? What I don't care about is your white-right NRA-twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.


The fact you disagree with the USSC means nothing.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> I think you've got the wrong guy.
> 
> He is generally a right wing 2nd amendment person.  Do a little research and keep it in context.


No; he's generally a gun controller with some mild interest in keeping the guns he approves in the hands of those he approves.

Like I said to Missourian, there's no "except" clause at the end of the Second  Amendment.  Since he agrees that the government can infringe, the only thing that separates him from David Chipman is the negotiation on which guns to ban and from whom.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its not a slippery slope fallacy when we're already half-way down the hill.
> 1968:  Felons can't have guns
> 1993:  We need background checks to keep felons from buying guns
> 1998:  We need -universal- background checks to prevent criminals from buying guns
> ...


Some additions for your list:
1934: Many guns are taxed to prevent blacks from owning them
1938: Violent felons cannot have guns
then, 1968: Felony litterers cannot have guns, along with any other non-violent felons.
1992-2000: The Clinton VA sends the names of 83000 vets with PTSD to the FBI to ban them from owning guns.
1996: Misdemeanor domestic violence offenders cannot own guns.
1996: Those whose intimate partners make claims, falsely or otherwise, against them to get a protective order cannot own guns.
2015: The Obama VA sends 270,000 names of vets, some with PTSD, some simply not able to balance their checkbooks so they have assistance with their finances, to the FBI to strip those vets of their right to keep and bear arms.
1993 to current: Congressional Democrats and Republicans, alike, include rules in all budgets forbidding the ATF or FBI from spending one red cent enabling potentially falsely prohibited persons from appealing their prohibited status even though the Brady bill requires a process for appealing.

2021: Lots of faux conservatives on usmessageboard.com and elsewhere support the government's right to choose who gets to own guns and to continually add to the list of groups who are prohibited persons.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The NRA and pro-gun people have been saying for years that the government should enforce current laws before creating new ones.
> Glad the Democrats finally caught on.


Exactly...









						Georgia ‘gun pipeline’ that ‘flooded’ NYC with illegal firearms shutdown, nine indicted, feds say
					

A gun pipeline where traffickers flooded New York City with firearms purchased in Georgia has been shut down and nine people are facing federal charges in connection with reselling the guns, some of which appeared in music videos and were used to shoot at police officers, authorities said Wednesday.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Missourian (Aug 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> No; he's generally a gun controller with some mild interest in keeping the guns he approves in the hands of those he approves.
> 
> Like I said to Missourian, there's no "except" clause at the end of the Second  Amendment.  Since he agrees that the government can infringe, the only thing that separates him from David Chipman is the negotiation on which guns to ban and from whom.


Actions have consequences.

You have the right to live free...until you decide to commit a crime.  Then that right is curtailed and you get to live in a five by eight cell.

You commit a felony...no gun for you.

Everyone wants to expound upon their rights...but they never seem to remember their responsibilities.

I'm all for restoring the firearm rights of felons...but I take no issue with the current system of removing both the voting and second amendment rights of convicted felons.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Actions have consequences.
> 
> You have the right to live free...until you decide to commit a crime.  Then that right is curtailed and you get to live in a five by eight cell.
> 
> ...



And what about right to a trial by jury?  Once convicted for the first crime, can they then be jailed without trial for any future accusations?  

Once convicted for a felony, can they or their property be searched forever any time the government chooses without probable cause or warrant?

Can they be forced to incriminate themselves?  Perhaps jailed until they confess to whatever crime the State claims they committed?

Can they be whipped and beaten?  Tortured with electrical shock or fingers cut off for stealing or any punishment the government wishes without any protection against cruel or unusual punishment?

By the way, more proof of  your ignorance and that you're really a gun controller:  there's no such thing as 2nd Amendment rights.  The 2nd  Amendment grants or creates no right.  It is simply, no more, no less, than a restriction on government against infringing on an already existing right.  It's a restriction on government.  Since you don't believe that the Constitution, or even the 2nd Amendment, places binding restrictions on government, then you wouldn't really understand the concept.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> And what about right to a trial by jury?  Once convicted for the first crime, can they then be jailed without trial for any future accusations?
> 
> Once convicted for a felony, can they or their property be searched forever any time the government chooses without probable cause or warrant?
> 
> ...


So... what were you convicted of?

www.thesellerslawfirm.com/2020/06/12/restoring-your-second-2nd-amendment-right/


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2021)

Missourian said:


> So... what were you convicted of?
> 
> www.thesellerslawfirm.com/2020/06/12/restoring-your-second-2nd-amendment-right/


I've never been convicted of anything.  Sad that you think anyone who defends the Constitution must be a criminal.  Next you'll be posting that if I don't have anything to hide I wouldn't object to a warrant-less search.

Notice, though, that you totally ignored the obvious questions I asked you.  Will you answer: 

Does a convicted felon surrender the right to a trial by jury of his peers?  Once convicted of a felony, he can forever be jailed on accusation or suspicion, no trial or conviction needed?

Once convicted of a felony, can a felon be searched by the government without any probable cause or a warrant?

Are you OK with the creep of infringement?  Keep in mind that it started with violent felons, next was all felons, then became misdemeanors, and even just plain accusations... When they come for your guns, Elmer, there will be no one to defend you.

Just answer the questions.  If you believe that these are true statements then we might simply disagree on interpretation and intent of the Constitution.  

If, on the other hand, you believe that these other rights are not surrendered upon conviction of a crime then you are very much nothing more the gun controller I say that you are.  Apparently, if you defend these other rights but not the right to keep and bear arms, then it is only  on guns that you support the government violating the Constitution.  You're a classic gun controller in the mold of the worst of them.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I've never been convicted of anything.  Sad that you think anyone who defends the Constitution must be a criminal.  Next you'll be posting that if I don't have anything to hide I wouldn't object to a warrant-less search.
> 
> Notice, though, that you totally ignored the obvious questions I asked you.  Will you answer:
> 
> ...


 

Woodwork?

More like Straw-man.

When you are convicted of a felony, you have proven you cannot be trusted to obey the law.  There is no denying that.

While I would like to see more reinstating of firearms rights...reduce the legal ownership of firearms by convicted felons is not Unconstitutional.  

It is a part of the punishment... known to all before they commit a felony.  If they valued their gun rights... they wouldn't have jeopardized them by committing a felony crime.


----------



## Batcat (Aug 5, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> Going after Straw Purchase has been going on for a long time and the penalty should be severe on the crime committed after the Straw Purchase and then you will see people take the law seriously


I feel anyone who straw purchases a firearm should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed by anyone using that firearm. 

For example if the firearm was used to murder someone, the straw purchaser would be changed as an accessory to murder.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Woodwork?
> 
> More like Straw-man.
> 
> ...



Won't answer the questions, huh?  Not strawmen at all; it's very much related to the topic as it is a question of constitutional or not constitutional.

So you are admitting that you don't care at all about the constitutionality of the infringement - thus proving that you are a gun controller  -  you just feel like it's an appropriate punishment.

You're entitled to your view on what's an appropriate punishment for crimes but you really need to quit pretending to support the Constituiton or the 2nd Amendment because you clearly support neither.  You consistently avoid the subject of constitutionality regarding your view on punishment for crime.   

The punishment you support is clearly not constitutional so you must certainly know that you are OK with the government violating the Constitution.  Since you clearly support government operating outside the Constitution then you should not raise constitutional questions about any other outside-the-Constitution actions by Government.

You are a gun controller, plain and simple.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own constitution.  The Constitution of the United States of America says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It ends it right there - the period after shall not be infringed.  There's no comma or semi-colon, there's no "but" or "except".
> 
> So, like I said, you can definitely believe that the government should decide who owns guns and who does not, ignoring that for the first 145 years of our nation the Federal Government understood that it could not regulate gun ownership.  Just quit pretending to support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution; you've already proven that you support neither.
> 
> Also, since you've agreed with Nancy Pelosi and the Squad that the Government is not bound by the Constitution but, instead, can do whatever you, Nancy, and the Squad want it to do, just don't complain when you get outvoted by the Squad and Nancy and they do far more stuff you wish they hadn't than they do enforcing your authoritarianism.



I think you answered his question about criminals having guns. You don't care what they have so long as you have your lityle ego boosting toys.


----------



## Stann (Aug 6, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html


The governor of Iowa just passed a law saying these purchases were legal. I thought she was a total idiot before, this just proves it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 8, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I think you answered his question about criminals having guns. You don't care what they have so long as you have your lityle ego boosting toys.


If you can guarantee that crime will stop and government tyranny at home and around the world will stop if I give up my guns - guns which have never been used in a crime or tyranny - I'll give up my guns.  Until you can absolutely guarantee it, I still need them.  Taking my guns will not at all help reduce the 44+ shootings and the dead cops in Chicago.  (edit to clarify: 44+ shootings plus a dead cop in Chicago in the past 24 hours).

If you want to stop crime, punish people who commit crimes.  That's not being done in much of America today.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 8, 2021)

Stann said:


> The governor of Iowa just passed a law saying these purchases were legal. I thought she was a total idiot before, this just proves it.


Find a link without a paywall.


----------



## Flash (Aug 8, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html




I normally agree with you on most issues but not this one.

Nothing that infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms is common sense.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 8, 2021)

Stann said:


> The governor of Iowa just passed a law saying these purchases were legal. I thought she was a total idiot before, this just proves it.


First, Iowa, last I heard, had a republican form of government, as required by both the Iowa and the US constitutions so, no, the governor didn't pass a law.  She signed into law a bill passed by the representatives of the people.

Second, she didn't pass a law making straw purchases legal; she signed into law a bill that allows private sales between private citizens without a government background check - as does the US Constitution and US law.

The law also allows Iowans to get a permit to carry from the State and to use that permit as evidence of being law abiding and able to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer.

The Democrats in Iowa are claiming that the law allows purchasing firearms from unlicensed dealers without a background check but that's not accurate.  According to current US law, being an unlicensed dealer would be a felony and get 10 years in prison.  There are no unlicensed dealers legally selling guns in the US.  A person selling their private collection is not a dealer any more than you selling an old sofa makes you a furniture store.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 8, 2021)

Missourian said:


> The kind that target criminals and not law abiding gun owners.


Because those laws do such a good job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals? 

And who decides who is a criminal?  Does that include enemies of the State?  Like peaceful protesters at the Capitol on January 6?  I'm not even talking about those who went inside but what about those who protested outside and peacefully sat on monuments to rest and is now facing 20 years in prison?









						DEA suspends agent for standing outside the Capitol during the insurrection
					

A US Drug Enforcement Administration agent was suspended this week for his participation in the US Capitol riot, though he insists he never went inside the building, his lawyer said Thursday.




					edition.cnn.com
				




And what about those criminals who spread disinformation (otherwise often known as the truth) about China Virus topics?  It hasn't happened yet in the US but it's happened around the globe and could very well come to the US as well.





__





						More than 300 people have been arrested for spreading COVID-19 falsehoods
					

Some countries justify the arrests as a crack-down on the spread of misinformation, but some human rights advocates are warning these aggressive measures are aimed at silencing criticism and controlling the virus narrative.




					www.poynter.org
				




The problem with gun controllers like you is that you suggest that the government should infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in some circumstances and  you pretend that it is the end of it and they won't expand their infringement.  You're not a conservative, you're not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  You're a Fudd gun controller.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> If you can guarantee that crime will stop and government tyranny at home and around the world will stop if I give up my guns - guns which have never been used in a crime or tyranny - I'll give up my guns.  Until you can absolutely guarantee it, I still need them.  Taking my guns will not at all help reduce the 44+ shootings and the dead cops in Chicago.  (edit to clarify: 44+ shootings plus a dead cop in Chicago in the past 24 hours).
> 
> If you want to stop crime, punish people who commit crimes.  That's not being done in much of America today.



When has America been under tyranny? 
Never. The closest was when you all called Obama a terrorist, Muslim and non American. He was totally destroying the country and out of control and not one of you gutless wimps fired a shot. 
What better excuse did you need for your guns? 

From the volumns ever written about too many guns, not one American has ever acknowledged their ownership as anything other  than my right. Even the mass slaughter of kids in schools by a ratbag who should never have a gun, is taken as the collateral damage of ownership. Just how fucked in the head are you people. It's as if life cannot go on without guns. That's how addicted you are to your pathetic excuses. 

Back to your Chicago story, how did those assholes get guns? I'll tell you. The restrictions are not tight enough in the first place because it's their right to have them because your filthy 2nd says so.  
There's the problem. 

I don't care if you have shed full  of guns and ammo, that reasons don't justify it. Especially when you say they are to suppress tyranny and protect yourself. Protect yourselves from your own stupidity.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 9, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> From the volumns ever written about too many guns, not one American has ever acknowledged their ownership as anything other  than my right.


Welll...  because it is.


Colin norris said:


> Even the mass slaughter of kids in schools by a ratbag who should never have a gun, is taken as the collateral damage of ownership.


By a ratbag who murdered his mother and stole her gun...
On average, per year, for the last 40 years, fewer than 2 kids were killed in a school shooting with an 'assault weapon'.
Precisely, what sort of gun control laws are justified by this,  and how?


Colin norris said:


> Back to your Chicago story, how did those assholes get guns? I'll tell you. The restrictions are not tight enough in the first place because it's their right to have them because your filthy 2nd says so.
> There's the problem.


The 2nd exists because the people who wrote and ratified it knew there would be people like you.


Colin norris said:


> I don't care if you have shed full  of guns and ammo, that reasons don't justify it.


I don't have to justify the exercise of my rights to you or anyone else; that you disapprove of said exercise cannot be more meaningless.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Aug 9, 2021)

Flash said:


> I normally agree with you on most issues but not this one.
> 
> Nothing that infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms is common sense.



Agreed.
Gun grabbers don't care if the population is left defenseless.
*EVERY* gun law is designed to make Constitutional gun possession more difficult. IF....a life is saved then that's just a talking point for more gun control.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Aug 9, 2021)

Truly, anyone who fights for diminishing the intent of the 2nd should be added to a list and relocated at some point as they do not agree with nor deserve the freedom the Constitution represents.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 9, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Welll...  because it is.
> 
> By a ratbag who murdered his mother and stole her gun...
> On average, per year, for the last 40 years, fewer than 2 kids were killed in a school shooting with an 'assault weapon'.
> ...



Again, they are pathetic justifications for the slaughter of kids. 
The fact remains, there are too many guns out there because you won't allow restrictions on lunatics.  But, that's your right and that's all you've got.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 9, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, they are pathetic justifications for the slaughter of kids.


Fewer than 2 kids per year, for the last 40 years, is a "slaughter"?
Why do you need to prey upon the emotuions of the ignorant to make your point?


Colin norris said:


> The fact remains, there are too many guns out there...


You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


Colin norris said:


> because you won't allow restrictions on lunatics.


"Lunatics" are currently banned from the purchase and possession of firerarms by both state and federal law.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 9, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fewer than 2 kids per year, for the last 40 years, is a "slaughter"?
> Why do you need to prey upon the emotuions of the ignorant to make your point?
> 
> You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
> ...





M14 Shooter said:


> Fewer than 2 kids per year, for the last 40 years, is a "slaughter"?
> Why do you need to prey upon the emotuions of the ignorant to make your point?
> 
> You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
> ...



You're mealy mouthed justifications are bullshit.  Try this stat. 









						The facts on the US children and teens killed by firearms
					

Firearms are the second leading cause of death among US children and adolescents.




					theconversation.com
				




I accept your ignorant apology.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 9, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> When has America been under tyranny?
> Never. The closest was when you all called Obama a terrorist, Muslim and non American. He was totally destroying the country and out of control and not one of you gutless wimps fired a shot.
> What better excuse did you need for your guns?
> 
> ...



The United States is under tyranny today.  We have a president who openly admits that he knows his order taking the property of landlords is unconstitutional but he's enforcing it anyway, with the admitted purpose of violating the Constitution until the Court can force him to do otherwise.  And, of course, the Court can't force him as he's already proven; he simply ignores their order.

We're under tyranny today.  We have a Supreme Court justice, one supposedly so conservative that the Democrats are still trying to get rid of him yet he just wrote an opinion that allowed the original eviction ban by the CDC to stand simply because it would expire soon, not considering at all that it was simply not constitutional.

We're under tyranny today.  We have black elected officials telling us to suck it up while they pay for their own private security because it is so important that their body be protected on earth so they can continue they can continue their work to ensure the rest of the black community doesn't have anyone to defend their own security.

My ownership of guns does not at all contribute to "too many guns".   In fact, there are too few guns.  Inner city residents have been stripped of any ability to defend themselves and being slaughtered in the streets and in their homes.  I know for sure that there are several dozen firearms on my block and not a single person has been killed or even attacked in many, many, years - if ever.  Crimes happen at a far greater rate in neighborhoods with fewer guns than in communities where only criminals have guns.

Even though more guns in the inner cities would have a significant crime-lowering impact, still the best solution is simply lock criminals up.  Lock them up from their first serious offense as a youth and lock them up for very long times, in very miserable conditions, if they repeat as an adult.  Crime will be significantly cut because criminals are off the streets and those thinking about a life of crime will fear the consequences far more than did these guys:









						Accused of bank robbery robbed 2 more banks next day after no-bail release
					






					usareally.com
				












						Attempted Murderer Released Without Bail In NY, Goes On To Shoot 3 More People – Concealed Nation
					

By John Boch via TTAG Remember when New York State Democrats said that their new “no cash bail” law would not apply to violent crimes? Someone in the city’s creaking criminal justice system didn’t get the memo. Feds say New York City gang banger Darrius Sutton, 23, committed three more...




					concealednation.org
				












						Revealed: Nearly 70 people dead in Houston area - murdered by someone free on felony bonds
					

Houston, which is part of Harris County has seen an explosion of homicides this year, many of which are attributed to convicted felons being released from jail, some without bond, by liberal judges.




					www.lawenforcementtoday.com
				




Of course I can post these until the server runs out of memory and never run out of stories of criminals let out on no bail who commit more crimes, including murder.  Don't you think that this has far more influence in crime stats than do the guns stored safely in my safe?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 9, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You're mealy mouthed justifications are bullshit.  Try this stat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What a lie.  M14 Shooter correctly posted the statistics of school shootings and then you bring in the murdered children in Chicago and LA into the picture - children you don't give a damn about because they're black and weren't killed by a cop.

Children in the cities are being killed because criminals walk the streets and the communities have a culture that celebrates thuggery and violence, where fathers are absent and mothers cannot keep their children in their beds at 2 o'clock in the morning.









						Stop blaming police for killing of 13-year-old out on the street in middle of the night
					

Stop blaming police for killing of 13-year-old out on the street in middle of the night Every time a child is killed by a street gang or even by police,




					suburbanchicagoland.com
				




My guns don't kill those children; thug culture and lack of police enforcement and prison punishment kills those kids.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 9, 2021)

Here is another example of why Missourian is wrong.  Not only has the government expanded the list of prohibited persons (how can a person be prohibited but an alien can't be illegal?), they are also changing the definition of transfer and including "should have known" in the definition of straw purchases.









						NRA-ILA | Gun Control and the Elastic Meaning of “Transfer”— Colorado Court Moves the Needle
					

One of laws championed by the gun-grabbing crowd is the so-called universal background check, in which private sales of firearms are subjected to a criminal background check, fees, and paperwork. What gun control advocates fail to make clear, though, is that their concept of “sale” extends to...




					www.nraila.org
				




Anyone who thinks there is any end short of total confiscation is an idiot.  Anyone who pretends to be a conservative, supporter of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment but supports gun control has lost touch with reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 9, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You're mealy mouthed justifications are bullshit.  Try this stat.


Move the goalposts much?
Why do you need to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant to make your point?


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Move the goalposts much?
> Why do you need to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant to make your point?



You call it emotions, I call it facts. The poster was wrong, ignorant and knows little  of the subject. That's clear. 

Why do you people continue posting lies? 
It can't be that hard to get some stats before the big mouth gets you into trouble. Think about that.


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 10, 2021)

Missourian said:


> That is correct.   I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Don't you?  Doesn't every law abiding citizen?


Then keep the criminals in prison. If a person is not deemed worthy to exercise their rights, they are not worthy to be part of society.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 10, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Then keep the criminals in prison. If a person is not deemed worthy to exercise their rights, they are not worthy to be part of society.


Yes, this is a much better option than bad law to correct the results of bad law enforcement which only leads to more bad laws to correct the previous bad laws, ad nauseum..


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You're mealy mouthed justifications are bullshit.  Try this stat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hey....dipshit....since when has a 19 year old been called a child? Or a 17 year old, or a 15 year old, hardened gang member?

Leading causes of child and adolescent death​In 2016, there were 20,360 deaths of people under the age of 19 in the U.S. Firearms were the second most common cause of death.

-----

Rates of death from firearms among ages 14 to 17 are now 22.5% higher than motor vehicle-related death rates. In the U.S., middle and high school age children are now more likely to die as the result of a firearm injury than from any other single cause of death.

For Americans between the ages of 1 and 19, a little over half of 2017 firearm-related deaths are homicides.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You call it emotions, I call it facts.


Facts or not, you know you can only push your agenda ny preying upon the emotions of the ignorant.
Rational, reasoned people will not be swayed by your fallacions appeals to emotions -- and you know it.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Facts or not, you know you can only push your agenda ny preying upon the emotions of the ignorant.
> Rational, reasoned people will not be swayed by your fallacions appeals to emotions -- and you know it.



That aside, I am still right and you are defending the indefensible. 
Don't bleat your ignorance and suggest I attack at the weak points. 
You're defence is weaker than all of it.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey....dipshit....since when has a 19 year old been called a child? Or a 17 year old, or a 15 year old, hardened gang member?
> 
> Leading causes of child and adolescent death​In 2016, there were 20,360 deaths of people under the age of 19 in the U.S. Firearms were the second most common cause of death.
> 
> ...



Rant all you like tough guy. 
The stats are there and I don't care if you don't believe them  it's still a fact. 
Settle down Rambo. You can't change a thing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> That aside, I am still right and you are defending the indefensible.


There's nothing indefensible about the right to keep ans bear arms, because there's no rational, reasoned argument against it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> The stats are there.,..


... and they only serve to negate your attempts to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Facts or not, you know you can only push your agenda ny preying upon the emotions of the ignorant.
> Rational, reasoned people will not be swayed by your fallacions appeals to emotions -- and you know it.





M14 Shooter said:


> There's nothing indefensible about the right to keep ans bear arms, because there's no rational, reasoned argument against it.



I have never denied there is a right. My point is there are too many gu s out there which are not used for their purpose. Take ak47 etc. Not one person needs a weapon like that. You get them because the NRA are playing on your fears and emotions. You're frightened of a tyrannical government. You need it to protect yourselves from yourselves. 

Heard them all before. 

Don't make me vomit with your pathetic excuses.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I have never denied there is a right. My point is there are too many guns out there which are not used for their purpose.


Every gun has a purpose under the 2nd, and is in common use for same.


Colin norris said:


> Take ak47 etc. Not one person needs a weapon like that.


Your requirement that a firearm fill some subjective "need" is laughable.


Colin norris said:


> You get them because the NRA are playing on your fears and emotions.


We get them becaue they are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus, "bearable arms"


Colin norris said:


> Don't make me vomit with your pathetic excuses.


I'm sporry you don't likethe fact that the right to keep and bear arms includes gun youdon't like, but your opinion on the matter doesn't matter.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Every gun has a purpose under the 2nd, and is in common use for same.
> 
> Your requirement that a firearm fill some subjective "need" is laughable.
> 
> ...



In fact there is no mention of any types in the 2nd. 
It's not laughable because most gun owners are testosterone driven. I'm talking about how often assault weapon  would be purposefully used in an normal environment. They are pure egotistical toys. 
Don't feel sorry for me with your mealy mouthed words. Feel sorry for the parents of those kids at Sandy hook who are suffering because you want assault weapons. you consider the mass slaughter of innocent is the price you pay for  your freedom. What a fucking joke. You're brain dead. 

You can rattle on forever with your pathetic justifications but nothing will change the fact too many guns are in the hands of idiots and that's why the us is being laughed at.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I have never denied there is a right. My point is there are too many gu s out there which are not used for their purpose. Take ak47 etc. Not one person needs a weapon like that. You get them because the NRA are playing on your fears and emotions. You're frightened of a tyrannical government. You need it to protect yourselves from yourselves.
> 
> Heard them all before.
> 
> Don't make me vomit with your pathetic excuses.




The Korean store owners who kept the Rodney King democrats from burning and looting their stores needed those rifles......and to keep you and the other democrats from filling mass graves with innocent people, there is nothing like a good Ak-47 rifel or AR-15 to keep you busy.......

Do you understand how good a self defense rifle the AR-15 is for civilian defense.....in a suburban or urban environment where you don't have to worry about the rifle getting gumbed up with dirt as you would in a wilderness setting?   The M-16s I used in the military sucked out in the woods......but in a house?   They are a good choice for home defense...

A woman points a snub nose .38 at a rapist or other home invader or invaders, they might take their chances....she points an AR-15 with confidence and they are leaving or surrendering....


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> In fact there is no mention of any types in the 2nd.
> It's not laughable because most gun owners are testosterone driven. I'm talking about how often assault weapon  would be purposefully used in an normal environment. They are pure egotistical toys.
> Don't feel sorry for me with your mealy mouthed words. Feel sorry for the parents of those kids at Sandy hook who are suffering because you want assault weapons. you consider the mass slaughter of innocent is the price you pay for  your freedom. What a fucking joke. You're brain dead.
> 
> You can rattle on forever with your pathetic justifications but nothing will change the fact too many guns are in the hands of idiots and that's why the us is being laughed at.



Moron......the Sandy Hook shooter chose Sandy Hook because there wasn't a police liaison officer on site......he could have gone to the middle school or high school, which he also attended, but they had an armed police officer on staff...

He chose the kindergarten class specifically because he knew they would be the most helpless during the attack....he planned the attack for years,  and thought of it as a video game....he wanted a high score..........he could have killed just as many young, defenseless children with pistols or a shotgun......in fact, the Luby's cafe killer used two pistols and, murdered 24...actively fleeing adults........and the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 with two pistols....

So, dipshit...the rifle had no advantage for him in his attack because of the range.......the rifle's only advantage is distance shooting.......and he could also have done the same damage with a shotgun....

You don't understand what you are talking about, you keep pulling crap out of your ass and thinking you are saying something intelligent.....

You are wrong.....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowd hadn't been  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> In fact there is no mention of any types in the 2nd.
> It's not laughable because most gun owners are testosterone driven. I'm talking about how often assault weapon  would be purposefully used in an normal environment. They are pure egotistical toys.
> Don't feel sorry for me with your mealy mouthed words. Feel sorry for the parents of those kids at Sandy hook who are suffering because you want assault weapons. you consider the mass slaughter of innocent is the price you pay for  your freedom. What a fucking joke. You're brain dead.
> 
> You can rattle on forever with your pathetic justifications but nothing will change the fact too many guns are in the hands of idiots and that's why the us is being laughed at.




*but nothing will change the fact too many guns are in the hands of idiots and that's why the us is being laughed a

How do you explain that as more people, not less......bought and carried guns over 27 years our gun crime rate went down 75%...our gun murder rate went down 49%.....

You. Can't. Explain. That.....*

Over the last 27 years, 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.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 10, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> You're paranoid, like nearly all RepubliQans today.
> 
> By your logic if we impose a speed limit of 55, it's just a step toward lowering it to 5. Slippery slope, right? Nonsense.
> 
> ...


You're projecting.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 10, 2021)

Race Burley said:


> Mad Jack: "You can have my dildo when you pry it out of my old dead hands."


Are you on LSD?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> And yet, you're clueless about the idea that those who don't care about the law don't care about being law abiding gun owners are completely willing to be law-not-abiding gun owners.  Gun control laws never stop the criminal; they only stop the law abiding.
> 
> When more and more people are on the lists to not buy guns, including vets and anyone who the government doesn't like, you're OK with that, right?
> 
> ...


Put down the baseball bat, your straw man is dead.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 10, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The NRA and pro-gun people have been saying for years that the government should enforce current laws before creating new ones.
> Glad the Democrats finally caught on.


As our president might put it...
Even a blind squirrel finds a...you know...uhh...The THING!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You don't have much understanding of the Constitution.  No right can be stripped, even with due process of the law.  Google Supremacy Clause.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the government can convict without a trial or jury?  Or that, as long as there's a law passed, a person can be charged twice for the same crime?


Are you on some sort of mind altering chemicals?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> No; he's generally a gun controller with some mild interest in keeping the guns he approves in the hands of those he approves.
> 
> Like I said to Missourian, there's no "except" clause at the end of the Second  Amendment.  Since he agrees that the government can infringe, the only thing that separates him from David Chipman is the negotiation on which guns to ban and from whom.


That's a lie


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, they are pathetic justifications for the slaughter of kids.
> The fact remains, there are too many guns out there because you won't allow restrictions on lunatics.  But, that's your right and that's all you've got.


You're good at meaningless buzzwords. How about some ideas for ACTUAL LAWS that might help?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> In fact there is no mention of any types in the 2nd


"Arms" unquestionably includes any and all firerams in common use for traditionally lawful purposes; it is impossible for you to soundly argue otherwise.


Colin norris said:


> It's not laughable because most gun owners are testosterone driven


You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.
Thus, your position is not only laughable, but  based on a lie.


Colin norris said:


> I'm talking about how often assault weapon  would be purposefully used in an normal environment.


As they are among the most popular firearms with a vast multituse of legal uses - at least as often as a handgun is used for self-defense.
Thus, "in common use".


Colin norris said:


> They are pure egotistical toys.


You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.


Colin norris said:


> Don't feel sorry for me with your mealy mouthed words.


Translation:
You got nuthin', and you know it.


Colin norris said:


> Feel sorry for the parents of those kids at Sandy hook...


There you go again, preying upon the emotions of the ignorant, knowing it is theoinly way you can push your agenda.
What's it like waking up every morning, hoping to hear of a mass shooting, so you'll have an opportunity to push something you know no rational, reasoned person will agree with?


Colin norris said:


> you consider the mass slaughter of innocent is the price you pay for  your freedom.


Your statement, above, demonstrates you hae no idea whatseoever how many people are killed with 'assault weapons' in mass shootings.


Colin norris said:


> What a fucking joke.


Oh,the irony.


Colin norris said:


> You're brain dead.


See above, in spades.


> You can rattle on forever with your pathetic justifications


Why do you hate the truth?


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Arms" unquestionably includes any and all firerams in common use for traditionally lawful purposes; it is impossible for you to soundly argue otherwise.
> 
> You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.
> Thus, your position is not only laughable, but  based on a lie.
> ...



No amount of your childish justification changes the issue one bit. Guns are out if control and that's a fact.  Say what you like, you are a classic example why.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> You're good at meaningless buzzwords. How about some ideas for ACTUAL LAWS that might help?



They are not meaningless. It is fact and it hurts you each time I use it.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No amount of your childish justification changes the issue one bit. Guns are out if control and that's a fact.  Say what you like, you are a classic example why.




Not a fact......as you have been shown....27 years of increased gun ownership and increased carrying of guns in public and the gun murder rate went down 40%, the gun crime rate went down 75%...

75% decrease in gun crime...with that fact, how do you say guns are out of control?


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Not a fact......as you have been shown....27 years of increased gun ownership and increased carrying of guns in public and the gun murder rate went down 40%, the gun crime rate went down 75%...
> 
> 75% decrease in gun crime...with that fact, how do you say guns are out of control?



Not interested.  Tell the families of all those children killed  in mass slaughters in schools etc. 
How's your statistics going there? 
Ask them if they think guns are out of control? 
How many guns do you have purely because you can? Ones that gives you a sense of power and inflates your perceived tough guy image ay? 
Are those guns necessary?


----------



## Missourian (Aug 10, 2021)

Flash said:


> I normally agree with you on most issues but not this one.
> 
> Nothing that infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms is common sense.


That's fair.

My position has always been... before we enact NEW gun laws,. we should enforce the laws already on the books.

And when the government does the thing that I advocate... the proper response is to give them credit for moving in what I consider the right direction.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 10, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> They are not meaningless. It is fact and it hurts you each time I use it.


You wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit you on the scrotum.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 10, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> You wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit you on the scrotum.



The one fact we both recognise is when you respond like that it proves you have nothing. That's a fact also.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> The one fact we both recognise is when you respond like that it proves you have nothing. That's a fact also.


And right on cue, you prove me correct. Good boy!


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 11, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> And right on cue, you prove me correct. Good boy!



If course. The only contribution  you've ever made to any debate is what goes down the our toilet.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 11, 2021)

Boy...your dignity is leaking out of your pants.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Not interested.  Tell the families of all those children killed  in mass slaughters in schools etc.
> How's your statistics going there?
> Ask them if they think guns are out of control?
> How many guns do you have purely because you can? Ones that gives you a sense of power and inflates your perceived tough guy image ay?
> Are those guns necessary?




Moron, those kids were in gun free zones....which made them targets for the killers...

Meanwhile, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives......

Can you tell which number is bigger...

More children die in bathtubs than because of guns...you idiot.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No amount of your childish justification changes the issue one bit.


Translation:
You know you have no meaningful response to what I said.


Colin norris said:


> Guns are out if control and that's a fact.


You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


Colin norris said:


> Say what you like, you are a classic example why.


I laugh at you.  Ha.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Not interested.  Tell the families of all those children killed  in mass slaughters in schools etc.


There you go again, soaking yourself in the blood and standing on the bodoes of the innocent as you continue to prey on the emotions of the ignorant.
Fact is, you -want- mass shootings because you know innocent blood is the only means you have to further your mindless agenda.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 11, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> There you go again, soaking yourself in the blood and standing on the bodoes of the innocent as you continue to prey on the emotions of the ignorant.
> Fact is, you -want- mass shootings because you know innocent blood is the only means you have to further your mindless agenda.



So you accept innocent people are getting needlessly slaughtered because  of your gun culture. Good.  
Perhaps you might do something about it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> So you accept innocent people are getting needlessly slaughtered....


"Slaughtered"
There you go, another dishonest attempt to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.
It is, after all, the only thing you have,


Colin norris said:


> Perhaps you might do something about it.


Indeed.
Remove all the unenecssar and ineffective restrictions laid upon the right to keep and bear arms by th elaw abiding, making it easier for them to defend themselves.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 11, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Slaughtered"
> There you go, another dishonest attempt to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.
> It is, after all, the only thing you have,
> 
> ...



You didn't provide much security for the kids slaughtered   at Sandy hook.  You speak of it as collateral damage and necessary to have unlimited guns. 
Don't give me that crap about protecting yourselves. You've go no guts.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You didn't provide much security for the kids slaughtered   at Sandy hook.


Sandy Hook was secured by a gun-free zone, which only served to get people killed
As intended.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 11, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sandy Hook was secured by a gun-free zone, which only served to get people killed
> As intended.



What a load of shit. Very poor justification.  How did the shooter get in then.. stop making a fool of yourself.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> What a load of shit.


I'm sorry you do not like the truth, but the truth it remains.


Colin norris said:


> How did the shooter get in then


He ignored the signs.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 11, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm sorry you do not like the truth, but the truth it remains.
> 
> He ignored the signs.



How naughty if him. Where did he get the gun ?  How did a nut case get a gun? 
Because the NRA fought against background checks. Grow up.  
You're pathetic.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> How naughty if him. Where did he get the gun ?  How did a nut case get a gun?
> Because the NRA fought against background checks. Grow up.
> You're pathetic.



He probably ignored the signs because he was illiterate which proves my point background checks should be done more stringently. 
Had enough yet?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> How naughty if him.


And yet, you support gun-free zones, because they make it easy to kill innocent people.


Colin norris said:


> Where did he get the gun ?  How did a nut case get a gun?


He murdered his mother, and stole it.


Colin norris said:


> Because the NRA fought against background checks..


Your statement, above, is a lie.
Why do you need to lie?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> He probably ignored the signs because he was illiterate...


Another lie.


Colin norris said:


> which proves my point background checks should be done more stringently.


Another lie.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 11, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, you support gun-free zones, because they make it easy to kill innocent people.
> 
> He murdered his mother, and stole it.
> 
> ...



Here's the link to prove my point. Why do you need to lie? 









						NRA spent $1.6 million lobbying against background check expansion laws in months leading up to latest mass shootings
					

Calls for tougher background checks and gun control in general have increased yet again in the wake of three mass shootings in California, Texas and Ohio that have left more than 30 people dead.




					www.cnbc.com
				




The rest explains itself. 

Why don't you think or research something before you shoot your mouth off? It's not hard and you can save yourself embarrassment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Here's the link to prove my point


Your statement is a lie, as you know your statement does nothing to prove your claim re: Sandy Hook.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 11, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your statement is a lie, as you know your statement does nothing to prove your claim re: Sandy Hook.



You can deny it all you like  and it wont change the fact a nut got a gun he shouldn't have and slaughtered 20 kids. 
Wriggle out of that Rambo.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You can deny it all you like...


I will.  Because your statement is a lie.
Background checks had nothing to do with Sandy Hook.


Colin norris said:


> and it wont change the fact a nut got a gun he shouldn't have


How did he get that gun?
Hint:  You've already been told at least three times.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 12, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I will.  Because your statement is a lie.
> Background checks had nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
> 
> How did he get that gun?
> Hint:  You've already been told at least three times.



You're the liar here. I posted the link and you didn't like it so brand it a lie. 

I don't care how he got the gun, its irrelevant.  His mother must have been mad also to allow the idiot access to it. She's better off off the planet also. 

The fact remains he murdered 20 kids for no reason and you are defending his actions and the guns.  Wake up to yourself idiot. If his ratbag mother didn't have a gun ,  it could gave been different. 
The lengths you Rambos go to to justify having guns is breathtaking. You mostly are good Christians but don't care about the murder of little kids because it could interfere with the 2nd. 
You prance everywhere trying to stop abortion so to allow them to get to school and a nut kills them. You've got your priorities right. Your  brain dead.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I don't care how he got the gun, its irrelevant.


It is _most certainly _relevant.
How did he get the gun?


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 12, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> It is _most certainly _relevant.
> How did he get the gun?



It might be relevant to you but from the point the country is saturated with guns, not me. 
If there were more stringent restrictions on who was allowed to access them, the slaughter of little kids by lunatics like him would be less. 
Don't attempt to justify the disgraceful gun culture because of the misinterpreted 2nD Rambo.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It might be relevant to you....


What's that?
You dont want to answer the question because you know said answer proves you lied?
Huh.  Imagine that.
How did Lanza get the guns he used to shoot up that school?


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You didn't provide much security for the kids slaughtered   at Sandy hook.  You speak of it as collateral damage and necessary to have unlimited guns.
> Don't give me that crap about protecting yourselves. You've go no guts.




Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year......to stop even mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their guns....

The major factor in the deaths of those children was the fact they were in a gun free zone......no guns were allowed for legal citizens, had there been, he would have chosen a different location for his attack.

Do you pray for the deaths of children?   Because you stand on their bodies to push gun control that does nothing to save lives.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It might be relevant to you but from the point the country is saturated with guns, not me.
> If there were more stringent restrictions on who was allowed to access them, the slaughter of little kids by lunatics like him would be less.
> Don't attempt to justify the disgraceful gun culture because of the misinterpreted 2nD Rambo.




You have to keep using Sandy Hook because school shootings are so rare, and kill so few each year......the majority of gun deaths are young black males murdered by young black males...but that doesn't sell the gun control crap because the majority of those young black males are violent gang members....so you have to ignore that  and focus on the few times children are targeted by mass shooters.....



Gun murder and children........

In 2012, the year of Sandy Hook.... 67 children were murdered with guns age 5-9..........20 of those children were in Sandy Hook....you idiot....so the majority were killed by criminals in likely democrat party voting districts...you don't care about them because that would reflect badly on the democrats....so you ignore those deaths...as they are the victims of violent criminals shooting at each other.......

Fatal Injury and Violence Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It might be relevant to you but from the point the country is saturated with guns, not me.
> If there were more stringent restrictions on who was allowed to access them, the slaughter of little kids by lunatics like him would be less.
> Don't attempt to justify the disgraceful gun culture because of the misinterpreted 2nD Rambo.




So....dipshit.....how many children were murdered in the gun free zone at Sandy Hook....

20.

How many children are there in the U.S.......

73 million.


How many Children die each and every year in bathtubs?   

87..........  Every year.....


How many children are killed by guns vs. by other means in the U.S.....2019...

Gun murder ....children 2019....

0-4......57
5-9......68
10-14.....144

*Total...269

Non-Firearm....

624

Out of 73 million children......

Guns are not the problem......the democrats are the problem.*


----------



## harmonica (Aug 12, 2021)

Missourian Biden's is the worst administration ever:
hate law-order-police but LOVE criminals
paying people not to work
open borders
etc etc etc


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It might be relevant to you but from the point the country is saturated with guns, not me.
> If there were more stringent restrictions on who was allowed to access them, the slaughter of little kids by lunatics like him would be less.
> Don't attempt to justify the disgraceful gun culture because of the misinterpreted 2nD Rambo.




So....dipshit....

How many children were killed in the mass public shooting.... in the gun free zone....at Sandy Hook.....

20.

How many children died from drowning that same year?

141

For the deaths of 20 children in a gun free zone at the hands of a man who illegally used guns..you want to ban and confiscate 600 million guns.....

Meanwhile, 141 children died from bathtubs....

do you want to ban bathtubs since they actually kill more children?

Your logic is stupid....

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....they are used to save lives from rape, robbery, beatings, stabbings, and murder.........

1.1 million times a year....can you see which number is bigger, and how many lives are saved?

*You failed to answer the questions...*
*
A woman is grabbed by a serial rapist at a bus stop or train platform.  He drags her into an alley or abandoned building to beat, rape and murder her.

Should that woman be able to use a legal gun to stop the rape, beating and murder?

If she had a gun, would you go back in time and take that gun away from her before the rape?
*
*Be brave....you coward....answer the questions..*


----------



## sear (Aug 13, 2021)

harmonica said:


> Missourian Biden's is the worst administration ever:
> hate law-order-police but LOVE criminals
> paying people not to work
> open borders
> etc etc etc


Interesting how even disinformation like this can be informative.
*
"Keep your friends close
your enemies even closer."
*


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Rant all you like tough guy.
> The stats are there and I don't care if you don't believe them  it's still a fact.
> Settle down Rambo. You can't change a thing.


Not a single child in the US was murdered by a firearm.  Many were murdered with firearms by people who were determined to commit murder.  Guns don't kill children; people kill children.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I have never denied there is a right. My point is there are too many gu s out there which are not used for their purpose. Take ak47 etc. Not one person needs a weapon like that. You get them because the NRA are playing on your fears and emotions. You're frightened of a tyrannical government. You need it to protect yourselves from yourselves.
> 
> Heard them all before.
> 
> Don't make me vomit with your pathetic excuses.



What is it about an AK-47 that suggests to you that no one needs one?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Put down the baseball bat, your straw man is dead.


You really are a phony, aren't you.  It's clear that you support gun control but in other posts you pretend to support the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> That's fair.
> 
> My position has always been... before we enact NEW gun laws,. we should enforce the laws already on the books.
> 
> And when the government does the thing that I advocate... the proper response is to give them credit for moving in what I consider the right direction.



That's a dishonest twist on what you've been saying.  You have said very little about enforcing the laws already on the books before enacting new laws.  Your premise in the opening post and in most posts since then has been wholly that the government can decide who gets to keep and bear arms and who can not and that, as long as they're restricting the people you want them to restrict, you support them in doing so.  Then you refuse to answer about others such as veterans or other rights like free speech or jury trials.

At least the gun-controller jarlaxle has the honestly to openly defend the incrementalism of adding hundreds of thousands of honorably discharged veterans to the list.  He's a gun controller willing to defend his support for government infringement.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Here's the link to prove my point. Why do you need to lie?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Has nothing to do with the Sandy Hook shooter getting a gun.  As M14 Shooter already told you, he murdered his own mother to get the gun.  Should we have background checks mandatory before committing murder?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html


Are they going to prosecute the Fast and Furious straw buyers that worked for the Obama administration ?


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Has nothing to do with the Sandy Hook shooter getting a gun.  As M14 Shooter already told you, he murdered his own mother to get the gun.  Should we have background checks mandatory before committing murder?



It doesn't matter how he got it who who he shot to get it. The fact is he slaughtered 20 kids but you continue with your pathetic justifications about gun ownership. 

You people have mental issues if you can't see there are too many guns floating around. I don't care what ratbag reasons you have nothing will change 
The basic reason. 
You idiots will say and do anything to keep guns in multiples.  It's ego and testosterone related. You guys don't even use half the guns you own and don't say you do.  You own enough for ammo Vietnam war and it sits rotting in the shed, just in case. 
What a load of shit.  You're all barking mad yet accept mass slaughters as if It is quite normal price to own a gun. 
The national is an international disgrace.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Are they going to prosecute the Fast and Furious straw buyers that worked for the Obama administration ?


Including the co-conspirators in government...


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

Ok. 





woodwork201 said:


> What is it about an AK-47 that suggests to you that no one needs one?



Why would your average family man living in a small country city ever need it? 
Don't give me the hunting  bullshit or protection. That's doesn't wash anymore.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Not a single child in the US was murdered by a firearm.  Many were murdered with firearms by people who were determined to commit murder.  Guns don't kill children; people kill children.


You have to be kidding. Read this you idiot. It's the second largest killer in the US. You are a blatant liar. 









						The facts on the US children and teens killed by firearms
					

Firearms are the second leading cause of death among US children and adolescents.




					theconversation.com
				




Have you anymore pathetic excuses?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You really are a phony, aren't you.  It's clear that you support gun control but in other posts you pretend to support the right to keep and bear arms.


Now you are just lying.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> That's a dishonest twist on what you've been saying.  You have said very little about enforcing the laws already on the books before enacting new laws.  Your premise in the opening post and in most posts since then has been wholly that the government can decide who gets to keep and bear arms and who can not and that, as long as they're restricting the people you want them to restrict, you support them in doing so.  Then you refuse to answer about others such as veterans or other rights like free speech or jury trials.
> 
> At least the gun-controller jarlaxle has the honestly to openly defend the incrementalism of adding hundreds of thousands of honorably discharged veterans to the list.  He's a gun controller willing to defend his support for government infringement.


OK, now you have gone from bullshit, to straw men, to outright making shit up.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Ok.
> 
> Why would your average family man living in a small country city ever need it?
> Don't give me the hunting  bullshit or protection. That's doesn't wash anymore.


Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention anything about needs.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention anything about needs.


That reaffirms my case.  If you don't need it, why have it? 
Because you can and it gives a sense of power and control. What happened to the home of the brave? Gutless wimps.  Anyone who has that many guns lying around has no reason to have them.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> That reaffirms my case.  If you don't need it, why have it?
> Because you can and it gives a sense of power and control. What happened to the home of the brave? Gutless wimps.  Anyone who has that many guns lying around has no reason to have them.


It's a right you don't have to show a need to exercise it.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> It's a right you don't have to show a need to exercise it.



It's your right to religion freedom but not everyone believes or does it because they can. 
You're feeble excuses is the reason of so much gun violence. If you don't need it why buy it? It's a testosterone thing without doubt.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> What is it about an AK-47 that suggests to you that no one needs one?


It looks scary, and she hates guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It's your right to religion freedom but not everyone believes or does it because they can.


You say that like it matters.


Colin norris said:


> You're feeble excuses is the reason of so much gun violence. If you don't need it why buy it? It's a testosterone thing without doubt.


^^^^
Mindless nonsense masquerading as petulance.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It doesn't matter how he got it who who he shot to get it.


YOU believe the NRA is at fault because of their opposition to background checks - so, it DOES matter hoiw he got it.
How did Adam Lanza get the gun he used to shoot up that school?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Why would your average family man living in a small country city ever need it?


Did you notice how you failed to address his question?
Everyone else did - just checking.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an *actual* common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html


One m ore law that won't be enforced therefore it will do nothing.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> That's a dishonest twist on what you've been saying


Not at all.  It IS the law that convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearm.  It's been that way as long as I've been alive.  So no...no twist at all.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Are they going to prosecute the Fast and Furious straw buyers that worked for the Obama administration ?


That would be nice...but I wouldn't hold my breath...


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You have to be kidding. Read this you idiot. It's the second largest killer in the US. You are a blatant liar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you claiming that the gun walked itself by the trigger over to the child, spun on the grip to face the child and pulled it's own trigger?  The gun did all that and murdered the child?  I don't suppose you have any videos of  this behavior from guns, do you?  Any surveillance cameras downtown Chicago that caught the gun killing children in their mothers arms?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> OK, now you have gone from bullshit, to straw men, to outright making shit up.


Who pulled your string?  Suddenly everything I say you feel the need to challenge - and not challenge with quotes or facts but simply attack.

Missourian has about a dozen posts in this thread.  Only in post 104 did he mention enforcing existing law.  In post 51 he said "Exactly" to someone else suggesting the same but Missourian wasn't the one to bring it up.  He's a gun controller, admitting in other posts in the thread that he supports gun control.  

He's a hypocrite when he suggests he supports the 2nd Amendment - as are you.  You called my post about 200,000 + vets having their gun rights stripped a straw man.  Really?  You claim to support gun rights but you defend the government's power to infringe on the rights of honorably discharged vets?  You're a fucking idiot and don't deserve any of the rights and privileges defended by those veterans.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Ok.
> 
> Why would your average family man living in a small country city ever need it?
> Don't give me the hunting  bullshit or protection. That's doesn't wash anymore.


Antifa rioters comes to mind.

But there are many documented cases of multiple invaders in a home invasion where the resident used an AR to successfully defend against, shooting and hitting, multiple attackers in their own defense.   

Next, of course, you'll be wont to argue that if we're such macho men why can't we hit our target and there are no documented cases of an AR used with over 10 attackers.  Let me save you the keystrokes.  Even the cops, when in a life-or-death gun fight, hit less than 30% of their targets, often lower than 20% and, in many cases, 0% out of dozens of rounds.



			https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html
		










						SFPD Shootout: Officers Fired 65 Shots at Suspect, and No One Was Hit | KQED
					

Officers responded to two gunshots from inside an RV with a 10-second fusillade. The suspect, wanted for homicide, surrendered after the firing stopped.




					www.kqed.org
				












						Vault: Brothers start gun battles with police
					

Shocked viewers watched a shootout on a small-town Ohio street in broad daylight  in 1997.




					www.wcpo.com
				




And before you start crying about hit innocent bystanders with all those rounds, the police are 5.5 times more likely to hit an innocent bystander than a private citizen shooting in the defense of themselves or others.





__





						Fact: Police are Much More Likely to Shoot the Wrong Person than Armed Citizens
					

The fact is that armed citizens are about 5.5 times less likely than the police to accidentally shoot the wrong person



					learnaboutguns.com
				




All told, the AR-15 and even the AK-47 are among the safest guns in the country, being used to kill fewer than any other general classification of non-automatic firearms (because automatic firearms are used to kill even fewer per legally owned gun than any firearm, period).


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It's your right to religion freedom but not everyone believes or does it because they can.



Did I miss the post where you told the story of someone trying to force you to own an AK-47?  It's my right to own one but, even though I can, I don't.  Do you?  I do, on the other hand, own an assortment of other scary looking guns.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Who pulled your string?  Suddenly everything I say you feel the need to challenge - and not challenge with quotes or facts but simply attack.
> 
> Missourian has about a dozen posts in this thread.  Only in post 104 did he mention enforcing existing law.  In post 51 he said "Exactly" to someone else suggesting the same but Missourian wasn't the one to bring it up.  He's a gun controller, admitting in other posts in the thread that he supports gun control.
> 
> He's a hypocrite when he suggests he supports the 2nd Amendment - as are you.  You called my post about 200,000 + vets having their gun rights stripped a straw man.  Really?  You claim to support gun rights but you defend the government's power to infringe on the rights of honorably discharged vets?  You're a fucking idiot and don't deserve any of the rights and privileges defended by those veterans.


You don't have any facts, pisshead. You flame, troll, lie, and occasionally drop trou and spin in a circle, blasting explosive diarrhea in all directions.  There are no facts you will accept, you'll just flame and lie some more.  Fuck off.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Not at all.  It IS the law that convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearm.  It's been that way as long as I've been alive.  So no...no twist at all.


No; it's not the law.  The supreme law of the land is the Constitution and the Constitution expressly forbids it.  The courts and jurisprudence state that any regulation or legislation that violates the Constitution is, in fact, NOT law.  So it is not with law and Constitution and right that government enforces such regulations; it is with tyranny that they violate the Constitution and with their superior arms and power that they force submission.

It is no different from the tyranny of an eviction ban, taking the money and property of landlords, while openly admitting that it is not constitutional but they're going to do it anyway, and getting away with it.  Tyranny.

It's one thing for you to support tyranny.  Many do.  Many did in 1776 as well.  We can just disagree about the role of government and what they should or should not do.  

Just quit pretending to support the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment.  Just be honest with us and with yourself.  You're an anti-constitutionalist gun controller.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> You don't have any facts, pisshead. You flame, troll, lie, and occasionally drop trou and spin in a circle, blasting explosive diarrhea in all directions.  There are no facts you will accept, you'll just flame and lie some more.  Fuck off.


Once again, you ignore the posted facts, don't provide any evidence or facts of your own, and simply spout bullshit.  Give a single fact I stated that was wrong, and provide the supporting evidence.  You haven't done it once and you won't do it now.  You're an idiot and a gun controller.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Once again, you ignore the posted facts, don't provide any evidence or facts of your own, and simply spout bullshit.  Give a single fact I stated that was wrong, and provide the supporting evidence.  You haven't done it once and you won't do it now.  You're an idiot and a gun controller.


You (still) don't have any facts, pisshead. You flame, troll, lie, and occasionally drop trou and spin in a circle, blasting explosive diarrhea in all directions. There are no facts you will accept, you'll just flame and lie some more. Yet again, fuck off.
Calling me a gun controller is wrong. Continuing to do so is a lie.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Did I miss the post where you told the story of someone trying to force you to own an AK-47?  It's my right to own one but, even though I can, I don't.  Do you?  I do, on the other hand, own an assortment of other scary looking guns.



There's my point exactly. Why own these scary looking guns because you can? 

You don't get it.  The place is awash with your toys and admit it, guns are too easy to access. Because I can, That's a solid foundation. You haven't got a clue you fool.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Are you claiming that the gun walked itself by the trigger over to the child, spun on the grip to face the child and pulled it's own trigger?  The gun did all that and murdered the child?  I don't suppose you have any videos of  this behavior from guns, do you?  Any surveillance cameras downtown Chicago that caught the gun killing children in their mothers arms?
> [/Q
> 
> That pAthetic justification doesn't deserve a response.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Did you notice how you failed to address his question?
> Everyone else did - just checking.



Yes I did notice and I don't care if it drives insane. That's my choice and  I'll do it as I chose and there's nothing can do to stop me but whine like a child. 
Is that clear now?


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> No; it's not the law.  The supreme law of the land is the Constitution and the Constitution expressly forbids it.  The courts and jurisprudence state that any regulation or legislation that violates the Constitution is, in fact, NOT law.  So it is not with law and Constitution and right that government enforces such regulations; it is with tyranny that they violate the Constitution and with their superior arms and power that they force submission.
> 
> It is no different from the tyranny of an eviction ban, taking the money and property of landlords, while openly admitting that it is not constitutional but they're going to do it anyway, and getting away with it.  Tyranny.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry friend...but you are wrong.

It is the law...upheld by the Supreme Court...that felons, due to there own actions,  are prohibited from owning firearms...and have been for decades.

That is a fact.  You may not agree...you may fight to change the law...but that doesn't change a fact to an opinion.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Yes I did notice and I don't care if it drives insane. That's my choice and  I'll do it as I chose and there's nothing can do to stop me but whine like a child.
> Is that clear now?


Translation...

I Colin Norris am wrong.

I know I'm wrong.

You know I'm wrong.

Everyone can see I'm wrong.

But you cannot force me to admit it.

So  .


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Translation...
> 
> I Colin Norris am wrong.
> 
> ...



You don't have to admit anything. Your replies clearly indicate what I'm saying. 
Thank you.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> You (still) don't have any facts, pisshead. You flame, troll, lie, and occasionally drop trou and spin in a circle, blasting explosive diarrhea in all directions. There are no facts you will accept, you'll just flame and lie some more. Yet again, fuck off.
> Calling me a gun controller is wrong. Continuing to do so is a lie.


You defended the stripping of gun rights for 200,000+ veterans.  You're as much a gun controller as is Missourian and as is David Chipman.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> I'm sorry friend...but you are wrong.
> 
> It is the law...upheld by the Supreme Court...that felons, due to there own actions,  are prohibited from owning firearms...and have been for decades.
> 
> That is a fact.  You may not agree...you may fight to change the law...but that doesn't change a fact to an opinion.



So when the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional then that's the final word?  For instance, when the Supreme Court, in Plessy v Ferguson (1896), ruled that separate but equal was constitutional, that's what the Constitution said and then when, in Brown v Board of Education, the Court said that separate but equal was no longer constitutional, did the Constitution change?  Was it amended?

No; the Supreme Court does not change the law or the Constitution.  They give their opinions and lower courts base their rulings on those opinions on the belief that a different ruling would yield the same result if it went back to the Supreme Court so there's no sense challenging it.  Except when there is sense in challenging it, such as in Brown v Board of Education.  And, hopefully someday, Roe v Wade.

You've shown a significant misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment, of the Supremacy Clause, and the power of the legislature and the courts.  Overall, you get a D- on the Constitution.  I actually think you're well intended but simply misguided.  You really need to do more study on the topic.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> So when the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional then that's the final word?  For instance, when the Supreme Court, in Plessy v Ferguson (1896), ruled that separate but equal was constitutional, that's what the Constitution said and then when, in Brown v Board of Education, the Court said that separate but equal was no longer constitutional, did the Constitution change?  Was it amended?
> 
> No; the Supreme Court does not change the law or the Constitution.  They give their opinions and lower courts base their rulings on those opinions on the belief that a different ruling would yield the same result if it went back to the Supreme Court so there's no sense challenging it.  Except when there is sense in challenging it, such as in Brown v Board of Education.  And, hopefully someday, Roe v Wade.
> 
> You've shown a significant misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment, of the Supremacy Clause, and the power of the legislature and the courts.  Overall, you get a D- on the Constitution.  I actually think you're well intended but simply misguided.  You really need to do more study on the topic.


Ok...put your freedom where your mouth is...get a felony...get a gun...get arrested...go though the courts...tell the Supreme Court you are right and they are wrong...let me know how wrong I was from your prison cell.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Ok...put your freedom where your mouth is...get a felony...get a gun...get arrested...go though the courts...tell the Supreme Court you are right and they are wrong...let me know how wrong I was from your prison cell.


Add Tyranny to the long list of things you don't understand.  That the government has the guns and men to overpower me and jail me for violating their unconstitutional gun laws does not make them constitutional, idiot.  This is why we have so many gun laws on the books today: Fudds like you who support any law that doesn't affect you and who are authoritarians and want an equally authoritarian government.  You don't understand the nature of liberty or tyranny.  You don't understand the Constitution or the original intent and design of the Founders.  

This is why we're in so much trouble as a nation.  With few exceptions of people like me who truly understand liberty, tyranny, and the Constitution, most of our nation fall into two categories:  socialists and authoritarians.  The end result of both groups, by their design and their admission, is everyone complies with whatever the government demands, or else.  You, and others like you, are the reason this nation will fall.  You don't care about the nation or the Constitution.  You just want big, powerful, government, and you surrender to the rules it demands.

When they pass a law making your AR-15s illegal, will you turn them in?  When they pass a law that you an only have 100 rounds of ammunition, will you turn yours in?  When they demand that you turn in all of your magazines that hold over 7 rounds, will you turn yours in?  When they demand the surrender of all semi-automatic guns, and then call revolvers semi-automatic because one pull of the trigger prepares the gun for the next pull of the trigger, will you turn in all of your pistols and revolvers?

Well, of course you will.  You're a Fudd and, as you say, the law is the law.  The gun community is better off without you.  You're among those that the left quotes when they say even gun owners support whatever new gun regulations they're talking about.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Add Tyranny to the long list of things you don't understand.  That the government has the guns and men to overpower me and jail me for violating their unconstitutional gun laws does not make them constitutional, idiot.  This is why we have so many gun laws on the books today: Fudds like you who support any law that doesn't affect you and who are authoritarians and want an equally authoritarian government.  You don't understand the nature of liberty or tyranny.  You don't understand the Constitution or the original intent and design of the Founders.
> 
> This is why we're in so much trouble as a nation.  With few exceptions of people like me who truly understand liberty, tyranny, and the Constitution, most of our nation fall into two categories:  socialists and authoritarians.  The end result of both groups, by their design and their admission, is everyone complies with whatever the government demands, or else.  You, and others like you, are the reason this nation will fall.  You don't care about the nation or the Constitution.  You just want big, powerful, government, and you surrender to the rules it demands.
> 
> ...


Hold the phone... You said it wasn't the law.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Hold the phone... You said it wasn't the law.


They're not.  Not legally, not constitutionally.  That we often refer to them using the word law because that's how the government sees them, does not mean I accept them as law or that you should, Elmer.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Hold the phone... You said it wasn't the law.


At least you're not trying to deny that you'll be turning in your guns, ammunition, and magazines, on demand.  When the law requires  you to walk into that big block building with the smoke stacks on top, you'll walk in with a proud smile on your face; you're obedient.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> They're not. Not legally, not constitutionally. That we often refer to them using the word law because that's how the government sees them, does not mean I accept them as law or that you should, Elmer.


Should prisoners have guns?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Should prisoners have guns?


Answer my questions first.  Can the government strip the right to a jury trial for a second felony if someone has been convicted of a first felony?

Will you proudly and obediently turn in your guns, ammunition, and magazines?

I asked first so you answer first.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> At least you're not trying to deny that you'll be turning in your guns, ammunition, and magazines, on demand.  When the law requires  you to walk into that big block building with the smoke stacks on top, you'll walk in with a proud smile on your face; you're obedient.


I ignore the b.s.

The hyperbole and hypotheticals that folks throw out there when they can't make an decent argument on point.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 14, 2021)

Missourian said:


> I ignore the b.s.
> 
> The hyperbole and hypotheticals that folks throw out there when they can't make an decent argument on point.


It's neither hypothetical nor hyperbole.  If the government can strip the right to keep and bear arms then why can't they strip the right to free speech?  Or the right to trial by jury of peers?  This is a very related question.  Either they can strip any or all of these or they can strip none of them.  Which is it?  

Defend your logic by applying the same logic to other rights.  Come on, Elmer, answer the question or admit that your logic doesn't hold water but that you don't care about the Constitution; you want what you want from government.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Answer my questions first.  Can the government strip the right to a jury trial for a second felony if someone has been convicted of a first felony?
> 
> Will you proudly and obediently turn in your guns, ammunition, and magazines?
> 
> I asked first so you answer first.


Totally irrelevant to the argument.  Try sticking to the topic.  We are talking about the power to make convicted felons prohibited owners... nothing else. 

You're an absolutist.

Good for you. 

I'm not upset by that...

But...if you believe that the government has no power to deny a firearm to convicted felons...why does it have that power while they are incarcerated...or on parole...or probation?

The prohibition to own firearms is a part of the punishment.

I'd be willing to amend it.

But if the government has the power to infringe as part of the sentence while incarcerated...they have the power to prohibit after the incarceration as part of the punishment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> There's my point exactly. Why own these scary looking guns because you can?


Why -not- own them?  We do, after all, have every right to do so, and have no need to demonstrate a need to exercise said right.


Colin norris said:


> You don't get it.  The place is awash with your toys...


Indeed.
20,000,000 AR15s in the US
Over the last 40 years, 17 of them have been used to kill 266 people in mass shootings.








						US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation
					

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.




					www.motherjones.com
				



That's 0.425 AR15s per year, killing 6.65 people per year.
Out of 20,000,000 guns.

But hey - don't let facts, logic and reason bother you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Yes I did notice...


Thank you for your admission that you choose to not discuss the issue honestly, rationally, and in good faith.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It doesn't matter how he got it who who he shot to get it.


YOU believe the NRA is at fault because of their opposition to background checks - so, it DOES matter hoiw he got it.
How did Adam Lanza get the gun he used to shoot up that school?


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> It's neither hypothetical nor hyperbole. If the government can strip the right to keep and bear arms then why can't they strip the right to free speech? Or the right to trial by jury of peers? This is a very related question. Either they can strip any or all of these or they can strip none of them. Which is it?



This 'slippery slope' argument really doesn't hold water.

What crime could you commit that denying free speech would be considered a prudent punishment?

We are talking about denying a person adjudicated a criminal from owning a firearm because that person is no longer a trusted member of society...due to their own illegal actions.

What parallel can you draw between that and free speech?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You defended the stripping of gun rights for 200,000+ veterans.  You're as much a gun controller as is Missourian and as is David Chipman.


See, that's a lie. Stop fucking lying.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Yes I did notice and I don't care if it drives insane. That's my choice and  I'll do it as I chose and there's nothing can do to stop me but whine like a child.
> Is that clear now?


Yes, quite clear: you're dishonest and dumb as rat shit.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Answer my questions first.  Can the government strip the right to a jury trial for a second felony if someone has been convicted of a first felony?
> 
> Will you proudly and obediently turn in your guns, ammunition, and magazines?
> 
> I asked first so you answer first.


Put down the club, your straw man is dead.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes, quite clear: you're dishonest and dumb as rat shit.





M14 Shooter said:


> Why -not- own them?  We do, after all, have every right to do so, and have no need to demonstrate a need to exercise said right.
> 
> Indeed.
> 20,000,000 AR15s in the US
> ...



20 million of them!!! 
What are they used for? Protection? 
Hunting? 
Don't make me laugh.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> YOU believe the NRA is at fault because of their opposition to background checks - so, it DOES matter hoiw he got it.
> How did Adam Lanza get the gun he used to shoot up that school?



Again I don't care. The fact is there are far too many guns circulating under the guise you need them for protection. 
Any ratbag can have one. You've probably got guns you rarely use because you want them. Why? 
Yet you argue the point about how some nut got a gun. There's too many. Fuck your 2nd amendment. Explain that to your precious founders.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Thank you for your admission that you choose to not discuss the issue honestly, rationally, and in good faith.


Good faith? 
You have to be kidding. 
Buying assault rifles because you can u see the 2nd, they get into the wrong hands and kids are slaughtered needlessly then you bleat about good faith and honesty. 
You hypocrite.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 14, 2021)

Are you a real person or a sock?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 15, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Totally irrelevant to the argument.  Try sticking to the topic.  We are talking about the power to make convicted felons prohibited owners... nothing else.
> 
> You're an absolutist.
> 
> ...


It's absolutely relevant.  If the government has the power to restrict constitutionally protected rights for convicted felons then it must apply to all constitutionally protected rights.  How would the right to keep and bear arms differ from the right to a jury trial?  

Incarceration doesn't remove their right to own a gun; it simply removes their access to it.  For the first 149 years of our nation's history, no convicted felon was denied his guns when he got out of jail.  As a gun controlling leftist, you certainly must love FDR. 

So you admit you're willing to amend the 2nd Amendment out of existence.  Now, usmb'ers, the faux conservative, the sheep in wolf's clothing, the gun controller pretending to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, has finally, publicly, admitted he's against the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 15, 2021)

Missourian said:


> This 'slippery slope' argument really doesn't hold water.
> 
> What crime could you commit that denying free speech would be considered a prudent punishment?
> 
> ...


It's not a question of whether a gun ban is a punishment related to the crime or even appropriate to the crime.  It's a question of whether the government has the right to impose it in violation of the Constitution.

Since felony litterers get their gun rights stripped, how is that relevant to the the crime?  How would the right to a jury trial be any less related to the crime than would a gun ban?   Why would we let a litterer have free speech?  They should be shunned and never heard from.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 15, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> It's absolutely relevant.  If the government has the power to restrict constitutionally protected rights for convicted felons then it must apply to all constitutionally protected rights.  How would the right to keep and bear arms differ from the right to a jury trial?
> 
> Incarceration doesn't remove their right to own a gun; it simply removes their access to it.  For the first 149 years of our nation's history, no convicted felon was denied his guns when he got out of jail.  As a gun controlling leftist, you certainly must love FDR.
> 
> So you admit you're willing to amend the 2nd Amendment out of existence.  Now, usmb'ers, the faux conservative, the sheep in wolf's clothing, the gun controller pretending to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, has finally, publicly, admitted he's against the 2nd Amendment.


You realize your increase in bloviation correspondes with a decrease in actual substance. 

IOW... peripheral rhetoric you add to artificially bolster your post doesn't increase the strength of your argument...it decreases it.

Where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to infringe on a prisoners second amendment right to bear arms?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 15, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> See, that's a lie. Stop fucking lying.


Post 94.  You said it's a strawman.  That it doesn't matter in this discussion of government deciding who can own a gun.  Liar.





__





						Second time I must commend the Biden administration today...
					

You call it emotions, I call it facts.   Facts or not, you know you can only push your agenda ny preying upon the emotions of the ignorant. Rational, reasoned people will not be swayed by your fallacions appeals to emotions -- and you know it.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 15, 2021)

Missourian said:


> You realize your increase in bloviation correspondes with a decrease in actual substance.
> 
> IOW... peripheral rhetoric you add to artificially bolster your post doesn't increase the strength of your argument...it decreases it.
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to infringe on a prisoners second amendment right to bear arms?



You are such a fucking idiot.  Seriously.

A felon's right to keep or BEAR arms was not removed.  They had the right to be arms; they just didn't have access to them when they're locked up.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Founders did not intend that a prisoner should be separated from his guns while imprisoned?  Or are you suggesting that the Constitution doesn't allow convicts to be locked up at all so even not having access to their guns is a violation of the Constitution?

It is common law, universally understood, that a prisoner cannot have their guns while they're locked up.  You, no doubt, will now start a common law claim for the right to own arms but any such common-law standing was explicitly restricted by the 2nd Amendment.

So, according to you, any right protected, explicitly or implicitly, can be stripped as part of punishment for criminals... and we keep saying felons but we know it's not just felons.  It started as violent felons, became all felons, then felons and certain misdemeanors, and then protective orders and then it became anyone who needed help managing their checkbook register.  And you're OK with all of that.  You fucking communist, anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-Constituion asshole.

Just quit lying to yourself and to us.  You're a gun controller, through and through.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 15, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You are such a fucking idiot.  Seriously.
> 
> A felon's right to keep or BEAR arms was not removed.  They had the right to be arms; they just didn't have access to them when they're locked up.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Founders did not intend that a prisoner should be separated from his guns while imprisoned?  Or are you suggesting that the Constitution doesn't allow convicts to be locked up at all so even not having access to their guns is a violation of the Constitution?
> 
> ...


You may find this difficult to believe... but people who are winning the debate don't get angrier and angrier. 

Where in the Constitution is that power stipulated?

You admit...it is not.

You're the absolutist.  Not me.

This is your argument.

I've just taken it to its absurd conclusion.

The government has the power to punish tried and convicted criminals...

That power includes...by your own admission... the power to infringe on their right to bear arms.  That means they also have the power to continue that prohibition as a part of the punishment.

We've been debating the abridgement of 2nd amendment rights of convicted felons this entire time...nothing else.

So the moral of the story is... Protect your personal right to bear arms...don't break the law.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 15, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Post 94.  You said it's a strawman.  That it doesn't matter in this discussion of government deciding who can own a gun.  Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was: you countered an argument I did not make, classic straw man. Since I had realized by then that you had no interest in discussion, only flaming and trolling, I didn't bother to correct your lies.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> 20 million of them!!!
> What are they used for? Protection?
> Hunting?
> Don't make me laugh.


I see you aren't interested in facts.
No real surprise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again I don't care.


Because you know you were caight it a lie and do not have the intellectual honesty to admit it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Good faith?
> You have to be kidding.


Yes- the idea you are discussing the issue with any degree of knowledge, reason, or good faith -is- rather funny,


Colin norris said:


> Buying assault rifles...


You cannot cite a single crime int he US committed by someone with an assault rifle.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 15, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes- the idea you are discussing the issue with any degree of knowledge, reason, or good faith -is- rather funny,
> 
> You cannot cite a single crime int he US committed by someone with an assault rifle.


I'll be pedantic like you you now. It depends what you call an assault rifle. 
That idiot at SH used a bushmaster 15. Semi automatic weapon used in Iraq. 
Hardly a sleepy little pop gun. 
He also had a rifle and a handgun. 
That's confirms exactly how easily available guns are available. You can't deny that.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 15, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I see you aren't interested in facts.
> No real surprise.



Give me the facts about them. Let's see who is lying now.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I'll be pedantic like you you now. It depends what you call an assault rifle.


Fact remains:   No crime has ever been committed i he US with an assault rifle.
You argue from ignorance, dishonesty, or both.


Colin norris said:


> That idiot at SH used a bushmaster 15. Semi automatic weapon used in Iraq.


The only semi-automatic weapons use by the US in Iraq are handguns, shotguns and M82 rifles.
The Bushmaster used at Sandy Hook is none of these.


Colin norris said:


> That's confirms exactly how easily available guns are available. You can't deny that.


How, exactly, again, did Lanza get the weapon he used to shoot up that school?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Give me the facts about them.


You REALLY need to learn how to pay attention, as I already have them to you

20,000,000 AR15s in the US
Over the last 40 years, 17 of them have been used to kill 266 people in mass shootings.
That's 0.425 AR15s per year, killing 6.65 people per year.
Out of 20,000,000 guns.








						US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation
					

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.




					www.motherjones.com
				




These facts negate your narrative - you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

Missourian said:


> You may find this difficult to believe... but people who are winning the debate don't get angrier and angrier.
> 
> Where in the Constitution is that power stipulated?
> 
> ...


You're an idiot.  There's no need to spell it out in the Constitution that a person in prison cannot have their guns in prison.  That's called common law.

WIth your anti-constitutional thinking, the government can do anything they want and the Constitution is just a suggestion.  You're proving yourself to be more of a leftist, more of an American-hater, more anti-constitutional than I had thought.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> It was: you countered an argument I did not make, classic straw man. Since I had realized by then that you had no interest in discussion, only flaming and trolling, I didn't bother to correct your lies.




See, you really are the idiot I thought you are and now you prove it.  Your post 94 wasn't in response to something I said about you.  You quoted a post where I was responding to your cohort, the Missourian.  He was the first to support and defend the loss of gun rights by 200,000+ honorably discharged veterans.  In post 94 you piled on with him to defend that even though the post you quoted was my quote of the anti-gunner Missourian.  Once again, you really are an idiot.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 20, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> See, you really are the idiot I thought you are and now you prove it.  Your post 94 wasn't in response to something I said about you.  You quoted a post where I was responding to your cohort, the Missourian.  He was the first to support and defend the loss of gun rights by 200,000+ honorably discharged veterans.  In post 94 you piled on with him to defend that even though the post you quoted was my quote of the anti-gunner Missourian.  Once again, you really are an idiot.


Now you double down. I realize you're not too bright, but this is pathetic even for you.

OK, one more time for the slow kid: *I never actually said that.*  You are now just making shit up.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 20, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Now you double down. I realize you're not too bright, but this is pathetic even for you.
> 
> OK, one more time for the slow kid: *I never actually said that.*  You are now just making shit up.


Let the readers decide for themselves.  In post 94, you said that stripping the rights of 200,000+ veterans was a strawman in the discussion of incrementalism in restricting gun rights... You clearly support the stripping of their rights.  You're not only a liar, you're a gun controller, anti-constitutionalist.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Let the readers decide for themselves.  In post 94, you said that stripping the rights of 200,000+ veterans was a strawman in the discussion of incrementalism in restricting gun rights... You clearly support the stripping of their rights.  You're not only a liar, you're a gun controller, anti-constitutionalist.


You need to now not post unless and until you understand exactly what a straw man is.


----------



## basquebromance (Sep 24, 2021)

"Joe Biden has been protected by guns his entire life"


----------

